Ooooh, What happened to the KFC thread?

esuhl

vax2002 wrote: »

If anyone can tell me what race Islam is, I will buy them a ruddy KFC !

Obviously its members are part of the human race. Erm... don't worry about the KFC, though... I don't eat chicken.

Azari

esuhl wrote: »

Obviously its members are part of the human race. Erm... don't worry about the KFC, though... I don't eat chicken.

He said KFC.

What does that have to do with chicken?

Azari

Shevchenko01 wrote: »

I totally disagree with you.

If you allow a section of society to "get away with" an act that they themselves find offensive/racist, it breeds resentment.

An example: two of my (white) colleagues on a night out in Luton were attacked by two vehicles worth of an ethnic group that is a minority in the UK but not so in Luton. Both needed hospital treatment and the Police were involved. Both wanted to report it as a racially motivated attack but the Police did everything within their powers to stop that from happening.

If the situation had been reversed (if the attackers had been white), do you honestly believe that the same approach by the Police? This caused so much resentment by my colleagues that one in particular has started developing almost a hatred for the minority group – he felt that they were allowed to get away with something that he would have ended up inside for.

Laws, rules, whatever you want to call them, must apply to all equally. By arguing for protection for one race and denying it to all or some others is a racist approach in itself.

I do find you quote of “no one with any intelligence is going to take a few people calling whites 'whitey' or 'ghost' to be a matter for serious action” to be quite offensive and inconsiderate in itself, as the comments I’ve had in one or two local areas where I, as a white person am in a definite minority, have felt threatened and intimidated by the remarks and comments made by various non-white groups – yet are you saying that, as a white person I should simply accept it? That is dangerous ground indeed.

LOL.

Straw man by unwarranted extrapolation!

You have taken a suggestion that casual use of the term 'whitey' by certain groups is not offensive and expanded it to suggest that that gives certain groups carte blanche to assault others and intimidate them.

The argument here is about the use of words applied to certain groups and attempts by people such as goater to impose their own extremist view on others.

System

Azari wrote: »

LOL.

Straw man by unwarranted extrapolation!

You have taken a suggestion that casual use of the term 'whitey' by certain groups is not offensive and expanded it to suggest that that gives certain groups carte blanche to assault others and intimidate them.

The argument here is about the use of words applied to certain groups and attempts by people such as goater to impose their own extremist view on others.

No the argument here is that the word "jap" is a racist insult. You regularly use the word in everyday conversation therefore you are a racist

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

No the argument here is that the word "jap" is a racist insult. You regularly use the word in everyday conversation therefore you are a racist

You really need to get a grip.

In the first place I have no need to 'regularly' refer to the Japanese in everyday life.

In the second, 'Japs' is no more racist than 'Brits' or 'Scots'.

Of course, 'Pasty faced, saucer eyed, Brit b*stard' would be racist so I'm not denying that using 'Jap' in some contexts could be, likewise.

But other than that the racism is nothing more than a figment of your somewhat febrile imagination together with your rather arrogant and self important belief that you can dictate which words are racist and which are not.

System

You seem to ignore the other posters who say "jap" is a racist slur. You continue your one man crusade to bring casual racism back to the 21st century. I hope you are successful.....

Shevchenko01

mgdavid wrote: »

I'd say you're over-sensitive, have little or no sense of humour and maybe worst of all cannot laugh at yourself.
I've worked in two German companies for well over 25 years and in neither was the word 'kraut' taken as either offensive or racist; indeed it would often be used by Germans in a self-deprecating way. I also worked for a French company where 'frog' was often used and never viewed (by either nationality) as racist but more a term of endearment. I have friends who go motor racing in France and the banter is always about the 'frogs' and the 'rost-bifs'.
People who make a big deal out of being a 'victim' will always find something to be a victim about, no matter which words are banned.

I understand your comment but, as far as it refers to me, it's not true.

Your comments about the Germans & French are valid as both sides (them and you) accept the same rules of what is acceptable or not.

Please note that I didn’t quote any of the comments as they were not in my opinion printable but if you would have heard them and are a reasonable human being (regardless of ethnic origins) you I’m sure would have found them as offensive as I had.

Now, regarding your comments: I will happily laugh at myself and often do in company with those who will do likewise, at themselves, but when someone feels they can do/say what they want to me but become offended if I say/do the same back, then I become offended – not so much at what was said but by the hypocrisy.

We should either get rid of laws that govern what we can/cannot say to one another or address the lack of equality – one or the other.

Shevchenko01

Azari wrote: »

LOL.

Straw man by unwarranted extrapolation!

You have taken a suggestion that casual use of the term 'whitey' by certain groups is not offensive and expanded it to suggest that that gives certain groups carte blanche to assault others and intimidate them.

The argument here is about the use of words applied to certain groups and attempts by people such as goater to impose their own extremist view on others.

My comments were to try and point out that there is an imbalance in what is acceptable/unacceptable between different ethnic groups.

All I want is for the same rules to apply to all – if I am not allowed (please note that I choose not to anyway) use derogatory/inflammatory/offensive comments about another ethnic group then why is it okay in the reverse?

I also feel that if you let society get away with one minor thing it will expand on to larger things. Who’s to say that the reason that the group in my previous posting did what they did was because they had been allowed to get away with other lesser things, knowing that they themselves had the full protection of the law to stop others doing the same to them.

Believe me, all I ask for is equality...but please note that partial equality is not equality.

Shevchenko01

Azari wrote: »

You really need to get a grip.
In the second, 'Japs' is no more racist than 'Brits' or 'Scots'.

I'd personally ask the opinion of a few Japanese first before making that statement.


Also, to quote a previous posting of yours:

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.

Isn't that exactly what you are doing here?

mttylad

Why?

Why is "jap" racist when brit/scot not?

What is the element in shortening the name to jap that makes it racist?
I am neither American nor are we still in WW2 so the old wartime use of the name (being only a shortening of the name)
is old history and nothing to do with me, so why would using a shortened country name be insulting?

Surely it is the context that a word is used in that makes it an insult?


I'm surprised this thread has not been pulled yet.

Staying on topic, I will not use KFC now either. I like chicken, I don't like the way they are being killed though.