Am i in the wrong? (Racism debate)

[The Floyd]

Just now, leicsmac said:

That's true enough.

 

FWIW I think it's ambiguous and the only person who's going to really know the intent was the guy who said it.

I can just about agree with you on that .

[Merging Cultures]

Just now, The Floyd said:

Surely pondering on whether it is racist to label a member of another race as 'boy' is the very definition of tiptoeing around?

I don't think so, I think it is being addressed head on and in the open. I'd say tip-toeing around would be to try to avoid the discussion.

[MPH]

ok. fyi this is the guy you are trying to discredit:

 

 

Bill Quigley Law Professor, Loyola University New Orleans

Bill Quigley is a law professor and Director of the Law Clinic and the Gillis Long Poverty Law Center at Loyola University New Orleans. He served as Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights. He has been an active public interest lawyer since 1977. Bill has served as counsel with a wide range of public interest organizations on issues including Katrina social justice issues, public housing, voting rights, death penalty, living wage, civil liberties, educational reform, constitutional rights and civil disobedience. Bill has litigated numerous cases with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Advancement Project, and with the ACLU of Louisiana, for which he served as General Counsel for over 15 years. Bill received the 2006 Camille Gravel Civil Pro Bono Award from the Federal Bar Association New Orleans Chapter. Bill received the 2006 Stanford Law School National Public Service Award and the 2006 National Lawyers Guild Ernie Goodman award. He has also been an active volunteer lawyer with School of the Americas Watch and the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti. Bill is the author of Ending Poverty As We Know It: Guaranteeing A Right to A Job At A Living Wage (2003) and Storms Still Raging: Katrina, New Orleans and Social Justice (2008). In 2003, he was named the Pope Paul VI National Teacher of Peace by Pax Christi USA and is the recipient of the 2004 SALT Teaching Award presented by the Society of American Law Teachers.

 

 

 

 

( ps... he's white! ;-) )

[Parafox]

Has Thracian replied to this?

 

I bet, if he has, it was a gem of a comment

[The Floyd]

21 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

I don't think so, I think it is being addressed head on and in the open. I'd say tip-toeing around would be to try to avoid the discussion.

I was trying to refer to tiptoeing around the choice of language rather than tiptoeing around deliberating the offence it may cause. 

 

I do understand what you and others are saying though, just not entirely sold on whether it's newsworthy. It could set a precedent for people to claim racism at (non-racist) marginally offensive comments.

 

 

[Merging Cultures]

Just now, The Floyd said:

I was trying to refer to tiptoeing around the choice of language rather than tiptoeing around deliberating the offence it may cause. 

 

I do understand what you and others are saying though, just not entirely sold on whether it's newsworthy. It could set a precedent for people to claim racism at (non-racist) marginally offensive comments.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

Definitely not newsworthy. Much worse stuff happening in the world unfortunately. 

[Dr The Singh]

4 hours ago, Merging Cultures said:

In America, and also colonial Africa, Blacks were not only considered to have lower social status, but they were considered mentally inferior. The term 'boy' was used by White Slave owners (in America, and Colonialists in Africa), but not just the adult men it was also used by the children, to adult Slaves to enforce the 'Master/Slave' power dynamic, and the misconception that Blacks are mentally inferior.

 

So now, to call an adult Black male 'boy' is considered a derogatory term and is predicated on the historical basis that Whites considered Blacks an inferior race. Hence the term 'boy' is a loaded term and can be considered racist in certain circumstances.

 

This has probably been translated across to any ethnic power dynamic with Whites, and Hispanics are currently in a state of flux in the US, so I can see how it can be taken as 'racist'. It is certainly beyond patronising given the History of the US.

I work in Memphis slot, there is no way i would call a black person a boy......I value my life.

 

Whether i believe it's Big deal or not, those feckers do and would murder me.

[potter3]

 

[Finnegan]

On 05/04/2017 at 20:47, The Floyd said:

I was trying to refer to tiptoeing around the choice of language rather than tiptoeing around deliberating the offence it may cause. 

 

I do understand what you and others are saying though, just not entirely sold on whether it's newsworthy. It could set a precedent for people to claim racism at (non-racist) marginally offensive comments.

 

 

 

You seen to have made numerous assumptions for the sakes of kicking off in this thread, though, which were wrong.

 

Nobody has said its newsworthy, some kid just made a thread to ask a question. If that makes it newsworthy then apparently so is Smuts' progress on Tinder, Foxestalk's favourite chip shops and Belilal getting in to vaping.

 

There was also the claim that people were suggesting "boy" was uniquely a racist term which clearly nobody said, the literal meaning of the word is clearly a younger male, we all speak English here (well, I wonder about ScouseFox sometimes.)

 

This thread can basically be summed up as:

 

OP: am I racist?

Other folk: No but here's why what you said can be considered insensitive, so now you know for next time.

OP: Cool thanks.

A couple of odd folk: GWARGH THIS ISNT RACISM, RACISM IS DEAD, WTF EVEN IS 2017, YALL SOFTY LIBERALS

 

A word doesn't have to be uniquely used as a racist slur to be one in the right context. The words slope, spook and spade aren't words that are uniquely racist but it doesn't stop them being so in context and so there use should be considered in certain environments (eh, Mr Clarkson?)

[The Floyd]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

You seen to have made numerous assumptions for the sakes of kicking off in this thread, though, which were wrong.

 

Nobody has said its newsworthy, some kid just made a thread to ask a question. If that makes it newsworthy then apparently so is Smuts' progress on Tinder, Foxestalk's favourite chip shops and Belilal getting in to vaping.

 

There was also the claim that people were suggesting "boy" was uniquely a racist term which clearly nobody said, the literal meaning of the word is clearly a younger male, we all speak English here (well, I wonder about ScouseFox sometimes.)

 

This thread can basically be summed up as:

 

OP: am I racist?

Other folk: No but here's why what you said can be considered insensitive, so now you know for next time.

OP: Cool thanks.

A couple of odd folk: GWARGH THIS ISNT RACISM, RACISM IS DEAD, WTF EVEN IS 2017, YALL SOFTY LIBERALS

 

A word doesn't have to be uniquely used as a racist slur to be one in the right context. The words slope, spook and spade aren't words that are uniquely racist but it doesn't stop them being so in context and so there use should be considered in certain environments (eh, Mr Clarkson?)

 

What are you talking about? The OP's basis of his argument was him not deeming it to be newsworthy.

 

I didn't accuse anyone of saying that the term 'boy' is used solely to offend, I said that when people do use it offend, it can be directed at all ethnicities and it isn't exclusive to minorities. Which is where your comparable evidence differs, the words 'slope, spook and spade' have different meanings entirely.

 

I also can't find anyone screaming 'RACISM IS DEAD'. But apparently I'm the one making numerous assumptions, right ok.

 

I'm not going to add any great depth to my response because everything has already been covered and I've no idea why you've decided to bring it back up. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of your own first paragraph.