George Floyd (23 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

There are.
If it's work.its the HR department if it's in the street or social media it's the police.

Otherwise who arbitrates Or do you ignore it all?

But we aren’t talking about work or in law are we? No one is demanding the water buffalo guy is arrested. It’s the social castigation for “lesser racism” that’s the issue.

People do not like being called racist. That’s a good thing. But if they feel it’s a term with no meaning or a set of rules they can’t reasonably be expected to follow they’ll stop being concerned by the word at all. And without social power it’s nothing really.

Similar to sexual assault during me too. Once you collapse everything into a binary racist/not racist then you lose all nuance and either have to judge everything by the legal bar or lower the legal bar to the societal one.

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

There are.
If it's work.its the HR department if it's in the street or social media it's the police.

Otherwise who arbitrates Or do you ignore it all?

But the artibtrator would be applying the rules as set out by one of the groups, thus making it open to abuse.

In smmeee's example it'd be like the teacher applying the rules, but the rules were "whatever that one kid says is true". It'd be a facade of fairness and arbitration when in reality it'd be just doing whatever that kid wants.

Look at Aung San Suu Kyi - lauded for years over her stance on prejudice and a voice promoting democracy. Won a Nobel Peace Prize. Came into power and now we're seeing prejudice from her against the Rohingya but she doesn't see a problem or that those people don't have much of a voice. Could argue the same with Gandhi and his fight for independence from British rule. Indians should have self-determination. But also a staunch believer in the caste system and that those from lower castes shouldn't have the same rights as upper castes.

 

[clint van damme]

Nobody was called that.

If a black person calls a white person a Gammon or Karen, is that racist?

Been there. No.
Though if a black.person said all white people are gammons then possibly.

Same as calling a black person a roadman isn't but saying all black men are road men.probably is.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Nit getting into specifics. Just saying it’s reasonable for people to ask for a solid definition of you’re going to judge them by whether they follow it or not.

If you say “all comparisons between animals and POC are racist” then fair enough, but you can’t say “all things called racist by POC are racist”. That implies POC are somehow other as they don’t make mistakes or have biases that white people have.

Either that, or as Nick says, you’ve got to accept him saying gammon is a racist term.

Let's look at what's actually been said.

• Akinfenwa has not called anybody racist
• He has not considered it to be meant as a racial slur
• He has taken offence at being compared to a fat Water Buffalo (the connotations of savage, stupid, slow on the uptake and also of speed,, but strong, among many, are obvious), and considered that a racial slur he would rather not have directed at him again.

Nobody is condemning the person who said it, nobody is casting any aspersions on their character, nobody is suggesting there are any hard feelings afterwards. What is being suggested is, please take my feelings on board next time and, if possible, adapt your behaviour accordingly.

What, actually, is wrong with that? The only people who are questioning somebody's character are those questioning Akinfenwa.

 

[shmmeee]

Let's look at what's actually been said.

• Akinfenwa has not called anybody racist
• He has not considered it to be meant as a racial slur
• He has taken offence at being compared to a fat Water Buffalo (the connotations of savage, stupid, slow on the uptake and also of speed,, but strong, among many, are obvious), and considered that a racial slur he would rather not have directed at him again.

Nobody is condemning the person who said it, nobody is casting any aspersions on their character, nobody is suggesting there are any hard feelings afterwards. What is being suggested is, please take my feelings on board next time and, if possible, adapt your behaviour accordingly.

What, actually, is wrong with that? The only people who are questioning somebody's character are those questioning Akinfenwa.

To be clear I have no issue with what Akinfenwa has said and I get that he’s picked up a minor example because right now he doesn’t want to let it go and it’s the example that appeared. His statement was balanced and fair.

I’m simply talking about the general point of “it’s racist if someone black says it’s racist”.

 

[clint van damme]

But we aren’t talking about work or in law are we? No one is demanding the water buffalo guy is arrested. It’s the social castigation for “lesser racism” that’s the issue.

People do not like being called racist. That’s a good thing. But if they feel it’s a term with no meaning or a set of rules they can’t reasonably be expected to follow they’ll stop being concerned by the word at all. And without social power it’s nothing really.

Similar to sexual assault during me too. Once you collapse everything into a binary racist/not racist then you lose all nuance and either have to judge everything by the legal bar or lower the legal bar to the societal one.

I'm not arguing water bufallo is racist.
I'm arguing that white men who've never experienced racism shouldn't be telling Akinfenwa that he's wrong to take offence.

He may have got it wrong, no one will know.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

So it has to be clear cut. Snidey, underhand, ambiguous then just ignore it? Incredible.

I'm not saying ignore it. I'm saying make the most of the more clear cut examples first.

I'm not going to talk to the doctor about a cut on my finger if my legs been chopped off. Of course I shouldn't ignore it in case of infection, but I'd say it might be better to focus on the leg first.

 

[Nick]

Been there. No.
Though if a black.person said all white people are gammons then possibly.

Same as calling a black person a roadman isn't but saying all black men are road men.probably is.

Yes but nobody said all Black Men are buffaloes did they? They said it about a guy who had compared himself to one and also is a lot bigger than the average person.

You can quite easily rule out gammon being offensive or racist as a slur though?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

To be clear I have no issue with what Akinfenwa has said and I get that he’s picked up a minor example because right now he doesn’t want to let it go and it’s the example that appeared. His statement was balanced and fair.

I’m simply talking about the general point of “it’s racist if someone black says it’s racist”.

But that's where it's being twisted to! It's not saying everything is therefore racist if a black man says it's racist, it's saying that this black man feels it's racist,. and instead of looking at it, seeing the obvious connotations, and moving on, a bunch of white people are telling him it isn't racist!

Whereas the easier option is not to call him it, rather than deny him that voice!

 

[Nick]

Let's look at what's actually been said.

• Akinfenwa has not called anybody racist
• He has not considered it to be meant as a racial slur
• He has taken offence at being compared to a fat Water Buffalo (the connotations of savage, stupid, slow on the uptake and also of speed,, but strong, among many, are obvious), and considered that a racial slur he would rather not have directed at him again.

Nobody is condemning the person who said it, nobody is casting any aspersions on their character, nobody is suggesting there are any hard feelings afterwards. What is being suggested is, please take my feelings on board next time and, if possible, adapt your behaviour accordingly.

What, actually, is wrong with that? The only people who are questioning somebody's character are those questioning Akinfenwa.

Most of the questioning is probably down to him, himself posting that comparison on social media.

If I didn't want to be called something I wouldn't post pictures on social media, clearly inferring the comparison.

He clearly did consider it to be racist, hence he wrote a statement to the media about it?

 

[clint van damme]

Yes but nobody said all Black Men are buffaloes did they? They said it about a guy who had compared himself to one and also is a lot bigger than the average person.

You can quite easily rule out gammon being offensive or racist as a slur though?

Again, context. Are you saying comparing a black man to a large black animal can't be a racist slur?

 

[Nick]

But that's where it's being twisted to! It's not saying everything is therefore racist if a black man says it's racist, it's saying that this black man feels it's racist,. and instead of looking at it, seeing the obvious connotations, and moving on, a bunch of white people are telling him it isn't racist!

Whereas the easier option is not to call him it, rather than deny him that voice!

Maybe it's because you have people saying "If he thinks it is racist then it is, don't question it" or "he has been racially abused, don't question it".

 

[Nick]

Again, context. Are you saying comparing a black man to a large black animal can't be a racist slur?

Do you think comparing a pink, slightly red man's skin to gammon isn't a racist slur?

 

[shmmeee]

But that's where it's being twisted to! It's not saying everything is therefore racist if a black man says it's racist, it's saying that this black man feels it's racist,. and instead of looking at it, seeing the obvious connotations, and moving on, a bunch of white people are telling him it isn't racist!

Whereas the easier option is not to call him it, rather than deny him that voice!

He’s not being denied a voice though? Here we are hundreds of miles away discussing his thoughts. As you say he doesn’t call anyone racist, he’s just bringing it up. But his argument is still just an argument and people are allowed to disagree. Whether it’s a good or bad argument doesn’t hinge on his skin colour. I could have brought it up and the argument would be just as valid/invalid.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Maybe it's because you have people saying "If he thinks it is racist then it is, don't question it" or "he has been racially abused, don't question it".

No! They're saying it's blindingly obvious connotations, and to deny him that voice when he articulates them is, in fact, continuation of the same power relations that see black people marginalised, dehumanised, and denied a voice in society!

 

[clint van damme]

Do you think comparing a pink, slightly red man's skin to gammon isn't a racist slur?

You've asked I've relied probably 5 times

 

[Deleted member 5849]

He’s not being denied a voice though?

He is! His view is considered irrelevant, inferior, and invalid. His voice has been tossed away, disregarded... mocked even. For what reason? What does it gain?

 

[Nick]

No! They're saying it's blindingly obvious connotations, and to deny him that voice when he articulates them is, in fact, continuation of the same power relations that see black people marginalised, dehumanised, and denied a voice in society!

Look at how well me trying to say that Gammon could be deemed as racist is going.

He isn't being mocked, people are making comments because he thought it was a good idea to post an image of him and a teammate who just happen to have the same skin tones as the animals as well. It isn't a comment he made between mates, he posted it on social media.

No doubt he has been through racism, I have no doubt he should be listened to about that. I am saying people should be setting examples, don't post something and then say it is racist for you to be called that.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Most of the questioning is probably down to him, himself posting that comparison on social media.

If I didn't want to be called something I wouldn't post pictures on social media, clearly inferring the comparison.

Niggers.

Niggerz.

He clearly did consider it to be racist, hence he wrote a statement to the media about it?

I explained that in the post you're quoting!! If you're not going to acknowledge that distinction, about how something can be considered a racial slur, but the person saying it is neither racist, nor intending it to be,, then there's no way forward.

 

[Nick]

He is! His view is considered irrelevant, inferior, and invalid. His voice has been tossed away, disregarded... mocked even. For what reason? What does it gain?

I am commenting and pointing out that it dilutes when things are racist and it sets a dangerous ground for things like that.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

We'll someone has to decide don't they?
If it's some of the posters on here nothing would be off limits!

As I said the black community should be the biggest voice in that decision but they shouldn't be the sole one, or it's open to abuse.

The argument being put forward is that if someone takes it as racist then it is racist. So that has to work both ways. If a black person see's a white blond kid with glasses and calls him the Milky Bar Kid which was due to the strikingly similarity of them to that character rather than intentionally racist, if the white kid says "he was being racist" is it automatically racist because he believes it to be even if it wasn't the intention. They may have intended it to be derogatory, but not intended it to be racist. The character just happens to have white skin.

But that's a potential rabbit hole. You've then potentially got people just using it as a handy cover for their behaviour saying "I thought that was racist" regardless of context and it would have to be deemed as such. Say there's a black person working in the office and they're lazy and are told as such. They respond with "I find that racist as it's playing on sterotypes of black people being lazy". According to what's been suggested if you send that to HR for arbitration the only ruling they could make is it's racist because the rules state that if a black person deems it racist it's racist. Even though it wasn't. It's because they're actually lazy.

 

[clint van damme]

As I said the black community should be the biggest voice in that decision but they shouldn't be the sole one, or it's open to abuse.

The argument being put forward is that if someone takes it as racist then it is racist. So that has to work both ways. If a black person see's a white blond kid with glasses and calls him the Milky Bar Kid which was due to the strikingly similarity of them to that character rather than intentionally racist, if the white kid says "he was being racist" is it automatically racist because he believes it to be even if it wasn't the intention. They may have intended it to be derogatory, but not intended it to be racist. The character just happens to have white skin.

But that's a potential rabbit hole. You've then potentially got people just using it as a handy cover for their behaviour saying "I thought that was racist" regardless of context and it would have to be deemed as such. Say there's a black person working in the office and they're lazy and are told as such. They respond with "I find that racist as it's playing on sterotypes of black people being lazy". According to what's been suggested if you send that to HR for arbitration the only ruling they could make is it's racist because the rules state that if a black person deems it racist it's racist. Even though it wasn't. It's because they're actually lazy.

Who is saying it should considered racist if a black person says it is I havent.
But
And what is your and nicks obsession with the milky bar kid?

 

[Grendel]

Of course someone can say coco pops is racist but I don't think it would be taken seriously would it?

And it wouldn't be decided by one person would it. Silly example so.its not dangerous ground because the example is nonsense.

Same as your fight example, if you use derogatory racist slurs and there's witnesses then.it racist.
If you don't and there's witnesses then.its not. I can't believe I have to explain that it's straight forward.

this is all a bit silly. Out of interest if Meghan markle was overweight And rather less photogenic and was portrayed in a cartoon as I don’t know an obese Ugly black wart hog would that be racist?

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Some people have had their pants well and truly pulled down in this thread.

No offense to Nick, but as someone who generally doesn't get too involved in politics, he's displayed more common sense than most.

A black person can decide everything is racist but a white person cannot say something like gammon is racist. That is not equality.

I think both water buffalo and gammon aren't anything to lose sleep over, but you cannot have it one way and not the other.

Either way, arguing over this point does nothing to solve actually racism.

Looking forward to the replies to this one.

- 1/2 on someone to call me racist
- 1/4 on someone blocking me
- 100/1 on someone actually dissecting my points respectfully and successfully

 

[clint van damme]

this is all a bit silly. Out of interest if Meghan markle was overweight And rather less photogenic and was portrayed in a cartoon as I don’t know an obese Ugly black wart hog would that be racist?

I think it would be considered so by a lot of people
You're of course comparing to the treatment of, I think Sarah Ferguson.

Though you can treat someone poorly without being racist and treat someone poorly with a racist angle.

You do realise I'm not arguing that the water bufallo comparison is racist. I'm arguing that if Akinfenwa was offended by the comment he has every right to speak out.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

you are a poor troll who pretends to be a teacher for some reason, I have no plans to interact with you this fine evening, therefore I suggest you go somewhere else and cast your net

You always do the troll thing when you know you've lost . Nice winking emoji.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

If I was a black man and was called a coco pop monkey then absolutely, I'd think you were a racist c**t!

There's a new teenage black magazine out this week called "Cocoa". That's acceptable. Calling a black person a cocoa monkey is unacceptable.
It's all about context isn't it ?

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Let's look at what's actually been said.

• Akinfenwa has not called anybody racist
• He has not considered it to be meant as a racial slur
• He has taken offence at being compared to a fat Water Buffalo (the connotations of savage, stupid, slow on the uptake and also of speed,, but strong, among many, are obvious), and considered that a racial slur he would rather not have directed at him again.

Nobody is condemning the person who said it, nobody is casting any aspersions on their character, nobody is suggesting there are any hard feelings afterwards. What is being suggested is, please take my feelings on board next time and, if possible, adapt your behaviour accordingly.

What, actually, is wrong with that? The only people who are questioning somebody's character are those questioning Akinfenwa.

Fat water buffalo - reference to his physical appearance / ability
Fat black water buffalo - as above but with blatent racism if the recipient is black, unless of course there is a particular breed of buffalo (black) that is phyically bigger than other water buffalo , then it's less clear. However, you'd be an idiot to use the word "black" towards a black person if you were in the wrong mood.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

As I said the black community should be the biggest voice in that decision but they shouldn't be the sole one, or it's open to abuse.

The argument being put forward is that if someone takes it as racist then it is racist. So that has to work both ways. If a black person see's a white blond kid with glasses and calls him the Milky Bar Kid which was due to the strikingly similarity of them to that character rather than intentionally racist, if the white kid says "he was being racist" is it automatically racist because he believes it to be even if it wasn't the intention. They may have intended it to be derogatory, but not intended it to be racist. The character just happens to have white skin.

But that's a potential rabbit hole. You've then potentially got people just using it as a handy cover for their behaviour saying "I thought that was racist" regardless of context and it would have to be deemed as such. Say there's a black person working in the office and they're lazy and are told as such. They respond with "I find that racist as it's playing on sterotypes of black people being lazy". According to what's been suggested if you send that to HR for arbitration the only ruling they could make is it's racist because the rules state that if a black person deems it racist it's racist. Even though it wasn't. It's because they're actually lazy.

I like this. Clearly there is inconsistency . A white person, based on the above, is less likely to find sympathy for deeming something to be racist, than a black person. It very much seems to be "if in doubt, squeal racism" (they're my words of course) and this i find intensely infuriating. You're pointing out a problem that is going to cause all sorts of problems and not least of all to the black community. Effectively playing the race card when there clearly isn't a case of racism is almost as bad as using racist language in the first place. Anyone who does that is effectively taking advantage of their race to gain advantage over another group or employer. Some would say that's what white people have been doing for decades and more. It doesn't make it right though.
I do think as well that the problem of the "milky bar kid" anaolgy is that a lot of people would simply say "grow up" because as a white person he's in the majority, its a joke, move on, we're all milky white , etc . It's not expected to go any further.

If I was called a white bastard at work and I replied with "well if I'm a white bastard then what does that make you ?"and a third party reported it to management I wonder which way that would go . In the current climate I'm not sure.

 

[Earlsdon_Skyblue1]

Exeter Chiefs Rugby club have been hunted down by the social justice gestapo and told to change their name and logo. The ended up ditching their mascot (a native american version of sky blue sam) but they've kept the rest.

When the group lobbying for the change were asked who got offended, they said they had contacted some native american people to get their opinion. Basically, they went looking for who they could find that got offended.

Shit like this dilutes the real problems.

 

[dancers lance]

Exeter Chiefs Rugby club have been hunted down by the social justice gestapo and told to change their name and logo. The ended up ditching their mascot (a native american version of sky blue sam) but they've kept the rest.

When the group lobbying for the change were asked who got offended, they said they had contacted some native american people to get their opinion. Basically, they went looking for who they could find that got offended.

Shit like this dilutes the real problems.

Well, that's the band Kaiser Chiefs fucked, I'd like to see them talk their way out of this one!!

 

[skybluetony176]

Exeter Chiefs Rugby club have been hunted down by the social justice gestapo and told to change their name and logo. The ended up ditching their mascot (a native american version of sky blue sam) but they've kept the rest.

When the group lobbying for the change were asked who got offended, they said they had contacted some native american people to get their opinion. Basically, they went looking for who they could find that got offended.

Shit like this dilutes the real problems.

What’s the name of the group lobbying for the change?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Who is saying it should considered racist if a black person says it is I havent.
But
And what is your and nicks obsession with the milky bar kid?

The argument put forward was that if Akinfenwa had taken it as racist then it has to be considered racist. By extension therefore if any person takes something as racist it has to be considered racist.

It then went into "well, someone needs to decide what's racist, so why not the people that have suffered from it most". Nothing wrong with that statement at all. But that involves millions of individuals so who speaks for them? Does an organisation like BLM get to word it on behalf of all black people and speak for all of them even though they may not represent everyone's viewpoint on the matter? Would I be happy to have an organisation largely filled with white, middle aged men speak for me? That could include the ERG, Britain First etc and I sure as hell don't want them speaking on my behalf. I don't share their beliefs or opinions. So why are we assuming an organisation can speak for all black people who will have been brought up in a multitude of different cultures and environments? I then also mentioned an equivalent with IHRA definition of anti-semitism which can come across as denying anyone the right to criticise Israel or it's leadership. If you disagree with that definition you're anti-semitic. So such a thing is open to abuse and taking the IHRA example could lead to "criticism of black people is assumed to be racist. If you're not happy with this definition you're racist" It's a Catch-22.

The other option is that each individual gets to choose what's racist by what offends them. That too is open to abuse as we've seen as people will cry wolf and this harms the message because some people want to be pricks and not be held to account.

Which means therefore the only sensible thing is for that decision to have to be made cross-culturally, including black/white/Asian, with all different viewpoints considered. But it seems that this isn't good enough and is taken by some as 'white people trying to hijack the conversation'. It's not. It's about gaining a balance to prevent a lurch in the other direction.

You do realise I'm not arguing that the water bufallo comparison is racist. I'm arguing that if Akinfenwa was offended by the comment he has every right to speak out.

I get that. We all have things that seem relatively small in comparison to other things that for some reason get under our skin. Of course Akinfenwa has the right to speak out about it if he chooses. I'm just not sure why you'd choose to talk about that particular incident when he must have far more shocking examples that would be a more effective driver in the anti-racism debate.

I'll use this Reg D Hunter quote. "I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm just saying we've got bigger ones if it is"

 

[covcity4life]

Water buffalo is black right? It's more of a reference to him beining a beast anyway. All things black people have to put up with

Who was that big white guy that played upfront for Bradford or hull I think. Scored loads of headers. Heard him referred to as a tank or big lump. Never a "beast"

 

[Nick]

Water buffalo is black right? It's more of a reference to him beining a beast anyway. All things black people have to put up with

Who was that big white guy that played upfront for Bradford or hull I think. Scored loads of headers. Heard him referred to as a tank or big lump. Never a "beast"

Wait, you are going to now try to claim people calling him a beast are racist too?

That's awkward.