La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I consider Jap to be racist and so should it be. Knitting needle down the japs eye, Funny. Go-on. This'll have to be good. What I found funny about Knoxville's post was not that term japs eye was used but his imaginative idea of what should happen to paedophiles which involves knitting needles and jumping up and down on someone's pelvis. I have heard japs eye enough to not find it particularly funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Sorry but I thought you were going to try harder than that fella. Given how hard you have been trying to argue with people about racism & racist wordswhat constitutes "being racist" etc on more than one thread (which in itself is no bad thing even if I disagree with some of your ideas) and given how strongly you clearly feel about the topic, I simply don't believe that you would ignore a racist word purely because it's used in a joke. Surely also, if you don't point out and highlight that a word perhaps shouldn't be used, you're approving its use? It just smacks of double standards to me I'm afraid after you've argued about these things to the extent that you have. Maybe I'm wrong but it certainly looks that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 So it would be the correct word to use even though it is incorrect? I want to make sure I get it right because I genuinely thought that the word "coloured" was meant to be "safe ground" (and I'm sure plenty of other people do as well as this is the first I've heard to the contrary) but it would seem not to be the case from what you say. It's certainly not my intention that I would offend people based on their race regardless of what that might be. Strangely though I've known of black people who insist that they should be referred to as coloured and not as black so how does that work? How is anyone meant to know, in terms of who they may or may not offend. That means that whichever word you use you could be accused of being racist depending on who you speak to and that makes a nonsense of the whole thing FFS. I know a lot of white people who use the term coloured who think it is the correct term, which surprises me. As far as I am aware from experience and understanding of why the word coloured is used it would appear to me that black is the better word. It does depend on what that person would wishes to be called but I think it is safer to opt for black. White people define themselves as white and the opposite in terms of those with African or Carribean descent is to call themselves the opposite, black. Regardless of the fact that neither white people are white and black people black, the word black does not carry with it the same normative values as the word coloured. Coloured stands to separate those who anything but white, it places white as the 'normal' position and all others outside of that designation. Its use therefore has more oppressive implications. In the same respect, black people aren't actually black. Also if that's the "ok" word for using, what should be used for other races? Who knows anymore as it seems like there are plenty of people just dying to tell you this week it's a different word and you're an evil nazi for not knowing it. Well unfortunately white people get their knickers in a big fat twist when anything is pointed out to them that their behaviour is racist because they think you are labelling them as someone who is willfully oppressing others, when there is no premeditation behind it. Some people are oblivious to their oppressive behaviour. I can sometimes come out with homophobic things and I am gay. But it is not about pointing fingers to people who don't know or understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Sorry but I thought you were going to try harder than that fella. Given how hard you have been trying to argue with people about racism & racist wordswhat constitutes "being racist" etc on more than one thread (which in itself is no bad thing even if I disagree with some of your ideas) and given how strongly you clearly feel about the topic, I simply don't believe that you would ignore a racist word purely because it's used in a joke. Surely also, if you don't point out and highlight that a word perhaps shouldn't be used, you're approving its use? It just smacks of double standards to me I'm afraid after you've argued about these things to the extent that you have. Maybe I'm wrong but it certainly looks that way to me. I don't believe there is any need to. I have told you why I found the comment funny. Japs eye is a racist term and it might have been wrong of me to comment 'Funny' when such a term was used, even though that is not what I laughing at. I admit it was something I passed by with little notice, partly because it is used so much and because of its common use does not straight-away appear offensive, but it is racist all the same. And though we have disgressed somewhat from the topic of the thread, I am not going shout down anyone who is uses a mildly racist term out of no oppressive motivation in some policing manner. It is racist but why should I have pointed that out to him and everyone else just because I believe I have a good understanding of what is racist or not? There are plenty of other words and ways of speaking that have racial connotations but I can't continually challenge them all. I want to take part in forums but not police everything. When it came to discussing Paki I had a proper talk about that because I was surprised as how a racist term such as that was being debated, i.e. as to whether it was racist or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 the word black does not carry with it the same normative values as the word coloured. Coloured stands to separate those who anything but white, it places white as the 'normal' position and all others outside of that designation. Its use therefore has more oppressive implications. Fair enough - seeing it described like that it makes sense, and I can see how some people would take exception to that. See - I do not necessarily just argue for the sake of it. I don't agree with the remainder of the post though, although at least you've backpedalled a bit by saying you shouldn't have laughed at the racist joke. I'll let you off I suppose. And yes - I'm guilty of getting embroiled in rather a thread hijack so I'll shut my face now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Fair enough - seeing it described like that it makes sense, and I can see how some people would take exception to that. See - I do not necessarily just argue for the sake of it. I don't agree with the remainder of the post though, although at least you've backpedalled a bit by saying you shouldn't have laughed at the racist joke. I'll let you off I suppose. And yes - I'm guilty of getting embroiled in rather a thread hijack so I'll shut my face now. Maybe you are right, maybe I should challenge and point off everything. I might be acting selfish by passing that by given that I don't want to make a pain in the arse out of myself given that I already go off on a tirade about homophobia. But if you knew it was racist, why didn't you say anything to Knoxsville? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I know I said I'd stop but I'll just reply and then that's it. Honest. I don't really think it was a racist joke to be honest. It uses a term that may be considered racist, but the joke itself is not, and I don't believe the intention was either. Not that it really was a joke knowing Knoxville. I simply picked you up on it because being laughed at by you (instead of criticised for the use of the term) struck me as hypocrisy and double standards on your part, and I still think that. It's possible that's not the case but it looks that way, given the amount of discussion you've given to correct/incorrect racial words recently. I understand your conviction to the arguments, it just struck me as being at odds with your principles/arguments, and contradictory that you did not mention it. That is all, and that's all I have to say about that. You're of course welcome to agree to disagree, or indeed just disagree. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 As I said, I laughed at what Knoxsville was describing and completely ignored the word, it didn't even feature in my mind when I read it. But it IS racist. It is not hypocrisy or double standards because I wouldn't condone the use of that word nor do I think it is not racist. But I am no saint, I have behaved in a discriminatory manner and have been racist without knowing it. But yes, don't think I condone one type of racism and not another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 What's Knoxville doing with knitting needles anyway? Such affected elegance......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knoxville Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 What's Knoxville doing with knitting needles anyway? Such affected elegance......... Sticking one down your japs eye! Edit: LDV if your going to use my name at least spell it properly K N O X V I L L E!!!!!! I know your busy trying to rid the world of everything bad and make it a better place and dont have time to check these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 unreal. .. the convo has mutataed into this japs eye shite .. ive had enough im off for a chinkies.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I sincerely hope that this means a good few years added on to their sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hessian Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 I say it is inappropriate because it is meant to be a deterrent, I doubt it is; if it meant to teach a lesson, I doubt it will; and those it has affected would surely not feel that the right thing has been done. But they will be out in nine years, and the others in even less time than that. I don't think years in prison aren't going to have the effect of removing the motivating factors that led them to rape and treat that girl the way they did. Some might argue that they should be locked away for life, that would prevent them ever committing rape again but you really would never know if these people could change. Forget the deterrent aspect (jail's too soft for that); forget the reform aspect (the prison system is too under-funded for that). If prison can do those things at some time in the future, great. Meanwhile, what it does do is keep violent toerags out of general circulation and, therefore, serves a public protection function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Forget the deterrent aspect (jail's too soft for that); forget the reform aspect (the prison system is too under-funded for that). If prison can do those things at some time in the future, great. Meanwhile, what it does do is keep violent toerags out of general circulation and, therefore, serves a public protection function. I agree, society will be propected from these people for a while but then after some years they are set free to be able to do such things again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted January 23, 2009 Share Posted January 23, 2009 Forget the deterrent aspect (jail's too soft for that); forget the reform aspect (the prison system is too under-funded for that). If prison can do those things at some time in the future, great. Meanwhile, what it does do is keep violent toerags out of general circulation and, therefore, serves a public protection function. I agree, society will be propected from these people for a while but then after some years they are set free to be able to do such things again. But LDV as you have repeatedly said prison isn't the answer, so how in your world should society be protected from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.