It's possible that the majorit
Thanks Bard that means a lot.
.... and you're contributing to it. Congratulations.
Thanks Bard that means a lot.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
.... and you're contributing to it. Congratulations.
Again this thread has degenerated way off topic. Kappa and OldSpice I don't want to comment on the merits of your tête-à-tête other than to say it is off topic and not contributing anything. Get back on topic or we shut down. Forget the point scoring everyone.
I think the PC answer would be "no", but it feels like a lie. Suspect the answer has to do with the fact that I'm not in an oppressed minority, but at the same time to label Goodes as being more vulnerable than me might unfairly diminish him... but given some language that could be used against me without any realistic fear of reprisal...Is Adam Goodes actually vulnerable? Not like he's a completely unknown first year player or something and has put himself in the public spotlight many times (and been forced on it a few times too of course). I wouldn't consider him any more vulnerable than say... Julia Gillard/Tony Abbott.
Wow, this topic is making people tense here and on the radio.
Dermott Brereton and Rebecca Wilson just had a massive spat on SEN.
prove it
l have liked what u write mostly about this, but is just silly even for u
Great summary JMacFor the record I will concede that it is dangerous to label thousands of people as racist for booing Goodes. The reasons for the booing have been debated in great detail and good points have been made by both sides of the argument. What is clear is that the player himself is interpreting the booing as being racially motivated. From this post forward anyone who continues to boo is making a deliberate choice to communicate in a manner that causes racial offence and therefore risks being labeled a racist. My hope is that issue will increase awareness of the struggles of Aboriginal people and encourage the government to pursue meaningful reform. You will all be pleased to know that this is my final word on the subject. Apologies to all who I may have offended.
You are told how to behave in everything you do every day, why is this different (other than Goodes is Black)?Sorry - I won't have you or anyone else tell me how to behave.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I think you mean "intent" to be racist, because what she said was clearly racist, but she may not have understood it wasI'm merely saying she's innocent of racism.
and sometimes children say it how they see it as well. at her age how will really now unless asked.I am just speculating. In my experience children often mimick their parents.
Splitting hairs maybe but if she had no idea a term was racist when she used it she isn't being racist. Doesn't change that is a racist term but a person can't be held to be racist if that do not know that. To be labelled a racist the person had to understand the term was racist and use it accordingly.I think you mean "intent" to be racist, because what she said was clearly racist, but she didn't understand it was
So if someone robs a bank and then claims they didn't know it was wrong to rob banks, they are in the clear?Splitting hairs maybe but if she had no idea a term was racist when she used it she isn't being racist. Doesn't change that is a racist term but a person can't be held to be racist if that do not know that. To be labelled a racist the person had to understand the term was racist and use it accordingly.
In this situation the term is racist, the girl isn't.
Nonsensical example. If a person robs a bank they rob a bank period. They may want to claim they didn't know it was wrong which would beggar belief anyway but they would still be held accountable.So if someone robs a bank and then claims they didn't know it was wrong to rob banks, they are in the clear?
I know I am using an extreme example but I do so to show you, you are perhaps wrong.
"Intent" mitigates the issue it doesn't dismiss the issue
You are wrong, it is a legal argumentNonsensical example. If a person robs a bank they rob a bank period. They may want to claim they didn't know it was wrong which would beggar belief anyway but they would still be held accountable.
This is a more subtle area to interpret. We are asking for a moral judgement not the legal one a bank robber would face. Still it is pretty clear cut. If someone uses a term without any intent to be racist and with no knowledge that the term is racist they are not a racist even if the term is known to others to be a racist one.
Morally how can you accuse someone of being racist if they had no intent or knowledge of the racist connotations of what they said. Doesn't change the fact that the term they used was racist.
If this is the case with the girl then she wasn't being racist and there can really be no conjecture about it.
Splitting hairs maybe but if she had no idea a term was racist when she used it she isn't being racist. Doesn't change that is a racist term but a person can't be held to be racist if that do not know that. To be labelled a racist the person had to understand the term was racist and use it accordingly.
In this situation the term is racist, the girl isn't.
Yes, because this is about you, isn't it?I've been heckled for being Greek and being told that i 'take it up the ass' 'like all Greeks', see me having a w**k about it?
Excluding a race.Yes, because this is about you, isn't it?