Before Darren Lehmann there was....

[Zombie]

Originally posted by nicko18
firstly i believe he said "black c***s"

secondly, how is there a huge difference if he said "black c***"

thirdly, it is both offensive and racist.

1. From all articles I have read it is stated that he said black c***, no 's' at the end (or a 4th *).

2. Because there is no racism if he was simply calling him a black c***. Racism is prejudice based on race, there is no prejudice in the previous statement, he is not stating that all black people are 'c***s' just the particular person he was referring to who happens to be black (which none of the Sri Lankan team are anyway).

Simply referring to a fat person as a a fat c*** doesn't mean that you are saying that all fat people are c***s, however some fat people may get offended from a statement like this, but that doesn't make it a case of fatism (yes there is such a word)

The same thing applies to race, whilst Lehmanns remarks were derogatory (calling any one a c*** is), it wasn't racist as he wasn't referring to his skin colour as the reason that he was a c***. However adding the 's' on to the end of it starts to cross the line, then it could be presumed that he was referring to all black people as c***s which would make his statement racist.

3. The statement was offensive, yet not racist, you can't just change the definition of racism when it comes to saying something bad about someone. The same case goes for Richie Benaud when he referred to Muralitharin as black magic, as do many AFL commentator to Aboriginal players. Should Richie be suspended from commentating then? Or is it only allowed to refer to a persons race when saying something nice about them?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Zombie
1. From all articles I have read it is stated that he said black c***, no 's' at the end (or a 4th *).

2. Because there is no racism if he was simply calling him a black c***. Racism is prejudice based on race, there is no prejudice in the previous statement, he is not stating that all black people are 'c***s' just the particular person he was referring to who happens to be black (which none of the Sri Lankan team are anyway).

Simply referring to a fat person as a a fat c*** doesn't mean that you are saying that all fat people are c***s, however some fat people may get offended from a statement like this, but that doesn't make it a case of fatism (yes there is such a word)

The same thing applies to race, whilst Lehmanns remarks were derogatory (calling any one a c*** is), it wasn't racist as he wasn't referring to his skin colour as the reason that he was a c***. However adding the 's' on to the end of it starts to cross the line, then it could be presumed that he was referring to all black people as c***s which would make his statement racist.

3. The statement was offensive, yet not racist, you can't just change the definition of racism when it comes to saying something bad about someone. The same case goes for Richie Benaud when he referred to Muralitharin as black magic, as do many AFL commentator to Aboriginal players. Should Richie be suspended from commentating then? Or is it only allowed to refer to a persons race when saying something nice about them?

You're being stupid.

There is little difference whether or not the 's' is on the end. One is sigle and one is plural, other than that there is no difference. Calling someone a 'black c***' infers that there is something wrong with that person being black.

Maybe you should go and ask 100 black people if they felt that being called a 'black c***' isn't racist. I doubt you would get one of them to agree with you.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
You're being stupid.

There is little difference whether or not the 's' is on the end. One is sigle and one is plural, other than that there is no difference. Calling someone a 'black c***' infers that there is something wrong with that person being black.

No it doesn't, you interpret it that way. Like I said I can call someone a black magician but that doesn't mean that there is something right with being black either. It doesn't mean that he is a magician simply because he is black, nor does calling someone a black c*** mean they are a c*** simply because they are black. You can't have it both ways.


Maybe you should go and ask 100 black people if they felt that being called a 'black c***' isn't racist. I doubt you would get one of them to agree with you.

I'm really not going to debate you with your immature hypotheticals of go and ask <<insert group of people here>> and see what they say, next you will be playing the my dad's bigger than yours routine. It is not a case of opinion, it either is racist or it isn't and in this case it isn't. His remark whilst being offensive and including a racial reference was not racist to the defenition of racism.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Zombie
1. From all articles I have read it is stated that he said black c***, no 's' at the end (or a 4th *).

2. Because there is no racism if he was simply calling him a black c***. Racism is prejudice based on race, there is no prejudice in the previous statement, he is not stating that all black people are 'c***s' just the particular person he was referring to who happens to be black (which none of the Sri Lankan team are anyway).

Simply referring to a fat person as a a fat c*** doesn't mean that you are saying that all fat people are c***s, however some fat people may get offended from a statement like this, but that doesn't make it a case of fatism (yes there is such a word)

The same thing applies to race, whilst Lehmanns remarks were derogatory (calling any one a c*** is), it wasn't racist as he wasn't referring to his skin colour as the reason that he was a c***. However adding the 's' on to the end of it starts to cross the line, then it could be presumed that he was referring to all black people as c***s which would make his statement racist.

3. The statement was offensive, yet not racist, you can't just change the definition of racism when it comes to saying something bad about someone. The same case goes for Richie Benaud when he referred to Muralitharin as black magic, as do many AFL commentator to Aboriginal players. Should Richie be suspended from commentating then? Or is it only allowed to refer to a persons race when saying something nice about them?

its not like that at all and i think you know that. to say the barmy army were fat c***s is not saying that all fat people are c***s, but you are using this logic to twist the fact that if lehmann said the plural, then all black people are c***s.

your third point is blatantly ridiculous. a derogatory remark coupled with a reference to a persons race is racist.

 

[bunsen burner]

Get your hand off it, idiot. Stop using arguments that are irrelevant. You are plain ignorant if you don't think that calling someone a 'black c***' is racist.

What do you think Spider Everitt was in hot water for? He called Chisolm a 'black c***'. Are you saying Chisolm was wrong by interpreting this as a racist remark? Are you saying that the AFL have it wrong and calling aboriginal players 'black c***s' is not racist?

You are making a tool of yourself.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by bunsen burner

You are making a tool of yourself.

Its Zombie

That's his job.

Its clearly racist, if only because dark skinned people believe it to be.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by nicko18

your third point is blatantly ridiculous. a derogatory remark coupled with a reference to a persons race is racist.

You seem to have an inability to understand the meaning of racism, don't worry you are not alone, the majority of society have been miseducated on the matter.

Racism:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Calling someone a black c*** obviously comes nowhere near these parameters of the definition of racism.

I'll give you another example, I have a mate who is on the heavy side, he also happens to be Italian, quite often I'll call him a fat wog, sometimes in jest, other times in anger. This is not a racist remark, as I am not suggesting that all Italians are fat nor am I suggesting that all fat people are Italians. The same thing applies to calling someone a black c***, as you are not stating that a person is a c*** because they are black simply that they are black person who happens to be a c***.

You cannot suggest that calling someone a 'black magician' is acceptable whilst calling someone a 'black c***' is a racist remark. It is blatantly hypocritical to suggest that praising someone based on race is OK yet to denigrate them based on race is unacceptable, a point which you cannot possibly refute and is why you chose to ignore it.

It is not up to opinion, you could ask every single person whom has ever been called a 'black c***' before if they felt that the remark was racist and they could all answer 'yes' and it wouldn't make a little bit of difference. They would all be wrong, as are you.

I'm not debating the fact that Lehmann's remarks were highly offensive, nor am I debating the fact that Lehmann contravened the ICC's racial vilification act, as he clearly did and deserved his punishment for doing so.

The point that I am debating is that the remark was racist, it wasn't. The definition of racism and what type of remark is racist is clearly defined, to which 'black c***' does not fall into, no matter what your opinion of the remark, no matter what other people feel towards the remark. Plainly and simply the remark is not racist.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Jars458
Its Zombie

That's his job.

Its clearly racist, if only because dark skinned people believe it to be.

See the above post.

Your final remark is a racist one, calling someone a black c*** is not. You have stated that if dark skinned people believe something to be racist, then it is.

Discrimination based on race

By making this remark you clearly discriminate against non dark skinned people by suggesting that only dark skinned people can decide on what is and isn't racist.

You don't see it this way as you see it as being kind to people of other races and being compassionate to their feelings but that doesn't make it alright, your remark is racist.

If I take your sentence and replace certain words:

"Its clearly not racist, if only because white people believe it not to be."

then it becomes a clearly racist remark, the only difference between that statement and yours is that yours is more socially acceptable, yet is exactly the same, both are racist.

Dark skinned people, nor people of any individual race for that matter, do not decided what the definition of racism is, even if the remarks in question are directed to a person of that particular race.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Get your hand off it, idiot. Stop using arguments that are irrelevant. You are plain ignorant if you don't think that calling someone a 'black c***' is racist.

What do you think Spider Everitt was in hot water for? He called Chisolm a 'black c***'. Are you saying Chisolm was wrong by interpreting this as a racist remark? Are you saying that the AFL have it wrong and calling aboriginal players 'black c***s' is not racist?

You are making a tool of yourself.

What arguments are irrelevant? The one, and only, argument that holds any weight when defining whether a statement is racist or not is the comparison of the definition of the term 'racist' with the remark in question as i have done in previous posts. Peoples opinions or feelings, yours or the person who the comment was made about hold no weight in deciding whether the comment was racist or not.

Spider Everitt was in hot water for contravening an AFL anti racial vilification act.
Did his comment contravene the act? Yes.
Was it racist? No.
Was Chisolm wrong for interpreting it as a racist remark? Yes, as were you.

The AFL do not have it wrong as the AFL never claimed it was a racist remark, they charged him with racially vilifying a player not of making racist comments.

No my friend you are the one who is ignorant, you would prefer to ignore the facts and defintions of the statements in question and rather go along with the angry mob mentality of shoot first ask questions later. Not that it is a surprise coming from you, clearly you are one who is easily led into things guiding from your previous rants with PoSA.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Zombie
What arguments are irrelevant?

Black Magician. The English language is not black and white as you seem to think it is. Your logic is like saying 'lather' and 'bather' must be pronounced the same. The English language just isn't that simple. Your understanding of it leaves something to be desired.

Originally posted by Zombie

The AFL do not have it wrong as the AFL never claimed it was a racist remark, they charged him with racially vilifying a player not of making racist comments.

So how did he racially villify Chisolm then if it wasn't from his comments? I would say that Everitt racially villified Chisolm by making those comments, which would make those comments racist.



Question: If 'black c***' isn't a racist remark, then for what reason did Lehmann or Everitt have to even mention the word black?

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Zombie
You seem to have an inability to understand the meaning of racism, don't worry you are not alone, the majority of society have been miseducated on the matter.

Racism:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Calling someone a black c*** obviously comes nowhere near these parameters of the definition of racism.

Okay, lets have a look at the Everitt scenario. Something has gone on between them. Everitt runs up and calls him a 'black c***' in an agressive manner. There is no question that Everitt aimed to say something mean to Chisolm. He called him a 'black c***' as if there is something wrong with it. When you have an issue with someone, you don't go up and say nice things to them. You say stuff that is either designed to offend them or you tell them what is wrong with them. And the remark is clearly inferring that the person in question is a lesser being because of their blackness.

It seems you don't know how to interpret English properly.

 

[dr nick]

you seem to be the one unable to grasp what racism is. did you ever stop to think why you are the only one who believes that "black c***" is not racist??? is it because you are wrong??

calling someone a fat wog is not derogatory if it is done in jest. if it is said with spite, like lehmanns was, it would be racist.

i think you need to re-read the first and second point under your definition of racism and understand why lehmanns remarks fall under that category. or do you just think the ICC and all the other QC's dont know what racism is??

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Zombie

You cannot suggest that calling someone a 'black magician' is acceptable whilst calling someone a 'black c***' is a racist remark. It is blatantly hypocritical to suggest that praising someone based on race is OK yet to denigrate them based on race is unacceptable, a point which you cannot possibly refute and is why you chose to ignore it.

are you just using proposterous arguments because you are digging yourself into a hole?

of course calling someone a black magician is acceptable, it is complementary. calling someone a black c*** is not, and i would think you are among the extreme minority who cant see the difference.

it's just like calling my mother an angel is acceptable, but calling her a whore would not be.

so, it is ok to praise someone and not ok to denigrate them. likewise, it is ok to praise based on race but not ok to denigrate based on race.



i suppose if i was to call someone "an ugly black piece of s*** who looks more ape-like than human" is not racist because it is not a blanket statement labelling all black people this way. you really are the one who does not have the ability to understand what racism is. did they skip that at school?

 

[bunsen burner]

zombie = eeediot!

 

[bunsen burner]

Before Darren Lehmann there was....Zombie.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Zombie
See the above post.

By making this remark you clearly discriminate against non dark skinned people by suggesting that only dark skinned people can decide on what is and isn't racist.

You

No you idiot

What I meant was that racism, the same as sexual harrasment is about the feelings of the person who has been insulted

How can a white person say whehter being called a black c is racist or not

The only one who can say - is the person who has been called it.

Its just a wild theory, but I gues most dark skinned people would find that term to be racist.

But if it was said to someone that didn't find it to be racism - then it wouldn't be racist.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Jars458
No you idiot

What I meant was that racism, the same as sexual harrasment is about the feelings of the person who has been insulted

How can a white person say whehter being called a black c is racist or not

The only one who can say - is the person who has been called it.

Its just a wild theory, but I gues most dark skinned people would find that term to be racist.

But if it was said to someone that didn't find it to be racism - then it wouldn't be racist.

You just don't get it do you you fool? It is not up to debate, it is not in question, I am telling you it is NOT RACIST. I couldn't care less if every single dark skinned person found it racist, it still doesn't make it so. Individuals do not decide what is an isn't racist due to how they feel about certain comments, comments are either racist or not based on whether their contents discriminates against a particular race or religion.

Racism is a term that is used to describe the singleling out of people based on race or religion, which your theory that because people are dark skinned they can determine what is and isn't racist is clearly a form of.

Like I said, you clearly don't understand the meaning of racism, even though it is clearly defined for you you still seem to want to move the goal posts and include any type of racial reference to your belief of what is and isn't racism.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by nicko18
are you just using proposterous arguments because you are digging yourself into a hole?

of course calling someone a black magician is acceptable, it is complementary. calling someone a black c*** is not, and i would think you are among the extreme minority who cant see the difference.

it's just like calling my mother an angel is acceptable, but calling her a whore would not be.

so, it is ok to praise someone and not ok to denigrate them. likewise, it is ok to praise based on race but not ok to denigrate based on race.



i suppose if i was to call someone "an ugly black piece of s*** who looks more ape-like than human" is not racist because it is not a blanket statement labelling all black people this way. you really are the one who does not have the ability to understand what racism is. did they skip that at school?

OK, this is how you can have it, one way or the other, but you can't have both.

Either:

a) calling someone a black magician is not racist because it is not singeling out their skin colour as the reason they are a magician but just simply mentioning it to describe the person. If that is so then calling someone a black c*** must also be not racist as you must use the same theory that they are not being singled out based on race but are simply mentioning it to describe the person.

or

b) calling someone a black magician is racist because it is alluding to the fact that their skin colour is the only reason that they are a magician, subsequently calling someone a black c*** would also be racist.

One or the other. You can't have it both ways simply because one is saying something nice and the other is saying something nasty, they are either both discriminating based on race or neither.

Your mother/whore scenario is completely irrelevant, if your mother was a prostitute then it would be quite acceptable to call her a whore. I wouldn't be suggesting that all mothers are whores, just that mother.

Your final statement would not be racist, likewise with calling someone a 'black c***' you are not saying that all black people are ugly and look like apes you are just saying that one individual is. Is it not possible for a human to resemble an ape? of course it is, therefore is it not possible for a black person to resemble an ape? of course it is again, but no where in that comment are you suggesting that all black people look like apes.

School is the main reason that people like yourself and Jars and BB have been miseducated about what does and doesn't constitute racism. Racial vilification and racial slurs do not neccersarily constitute racism, the proof is in the newspapers articles.

You will not see any newspaper that will dare suggest Lehmann made racist remarks, they will all either suggest he made a racial slur or contravened the ICC's racial vilification act. Why? because if they did then Lehmann could potentially sue them for defamation because his remarks were not racist.

Racism and racial vilification are two very different things, if you read the ICC's racial vilification act you will see that the act is very much broader than racism, it includes any race mentioned slurs of any kind. This is done because it is socially not acceptable to make these kind of statements as it severely hurts peoples feelings, but to suggest that it is anywhere near racism is lunacy.

Racism is a terrible, terrible plague on society and peoples racist attitudes need to be erradicated but to suggest that Lehmann's comments were racist is to really lessen the seriousness of racism which is reserved for the likes of race slavery and racial segregation and casting.

 

[bunsen burner]

Zombie: you are a fool.

I noticed that you conveniently avoided my earlier question. Funny how people who are wrong duck questions that expose flaws in their logic. I will ask you once more:


Question: If 'black c***' isn't a racist remark, then for what reason did Lehmann or Everitt have to even mention the word black?

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Okay, lets have a look at the Everitt scenario. Something has gone on between them. Everitt runs up and calls him a 'black c***' in an agressive manner. There is no question that Everitt aimed to say something mean to Chisolm. He called him a 'black c***' as if there is something wrong with it. When you have an issue with someone, you don't go up and say nice things to them. You say stuff that is either designed to offend them or you tell them what is wrong with them. And the remark is clearly inferring that the person in question is a lesser being because of their blackness.

It seems you don't know how to interpret English properly.

First racism and racial vilification are completely different issues, if you read the AFL or ICC racial vilification acts you would see that they take into account racism and then also expand on racism to include many other things including slurs which mentions race. i hope that answer your previous question of why he was charged with racial vilification and yet those remarks are not racist.

If you call someone a black c*** are you not inferring that they are a lesser being because they are a c***? Not because they are black?

OK I'll take nicko's example of calling a mother a whore, the remark is referring that the mother is a lesser being not because she is a mother but because she is a whore, the same applies to the 'black c***' comment.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Zombie: you are a fool.

I noticed that you conveniently avoided my earlier question. Funny how people who are wrong duck questions that expose flaws in their logic. I will ask you once more:


Question: If 'black c***' isn't a racist remark, then for what reason did Lehmann or Everitt have to even mention the word black?

Have I answered that in my previous post? I have not avoided your question at all, I have simply replied to other posts first.

If I haven't answered it then I will now. Lehmann or Everitt had no reason to mention the word 'black', but that doesn't make it racist. I can't tell you what they were thinking at the time, no one can, so all we can do is take their comments and judge those comments.

Putting 'black' before it only describes what colour the skin of the person who is being called a c*** is. That is not unusual, take the comment 'white trash' for example, it refers to the skin colour of a person but it is not a racist remark because all it does is simply describes the persons race that are being refered to as 'trash'. It is not saying that all white people are trash or that only white people can be trash it simply describes the colour of the skin of someone you are referring to.

Describing people based on skin colour is not racist, we do it all the time.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Zombie
You just don't get it do you you fool? It is not up to debate, it is not in question, I am telling you it is NOT RACIST. I couldn't care less if every single dark skinned person found it racist, it still doesn't make it so. Individuals do not decide what is an isn't racist due to how they feel about certain comments, comments are either racist or not based on whether their contents discriminates against a particular race or religion.

Racism is a term that is used to describe the singleling out of people based on race or religion, which your theory that because people are dark skinned they can determine what is and isn't racist is clearly a form of.

Like I said, you clearly don't understand the meaning of racism, even though it is clearly defined for you you still seem to want to move the goal posts and include any type of racial reference to your belief of what is and isn't racism.

You are more stupid than I thought.

black ****

means you are a **** because you are black

=racism

can I make it any clearer for you.

Thousands of years or opression contricute to why this phrase is racist.

Any reason do you think, that you seem to be the only one of this view?????????????

Go and have a lie down.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by Jars458
You are more stupid than I thought.

black ****

means you are a **** because you are black

=racism

can I make it any clearer for you.

Thousands of years or opression contricute to why this phrase is racist.

Any reason do you think, that you seem to be the only one of this view?????????????

Go and have a lie down.

why does the term black c*** instantaneously mean you are a c*** because you are black???

white trash - doesn't mean you are trash because you are white
black magician - doesn't mean you are a magician because you are black
fat c*** - doesn't mean you are a c*** because you are fat.

yet somehow all these are different?

Jars, you are uneducated and wrong. It could be millions of years of oppression and it wouldn't make a tiny bit of difference that the statement is not racist.

Like I've said before, if you want to debate the fact that the term black c*** was meant to imply that he meant 'all black people are c***s then fair enough but if you are going to blab on about irrelevant rubbish such as years of oppression and how the person feels about the comment then you can do it on your own as it has nothing to do with the meaning of racism.

Unless you can prove that he meant 'all black people are c***s', which you can't, then you can't classify the statement as racist, it is as simple as that.

 

[bunsen burner]

Zombie = dumb c***.

 

[Zombie]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Zombie = dumb c***.

Are you suggesting all people without the power of speech are c***s?

BB = immature c***

no i'm not suggesting that all immature people are c***s, just you. I'll let you get back to your dope smoking now you immature little boy, I can now understand why trying to teach you anything is impossible, your brain is frazzled.