Duke Taken To Hospital As 'Precaution'

[dirrty]

'genuine racism'? lets not trivialise racism now... and ok, i'm not going to argue with you over this for a 3rd day. it's quite evident that we both have different views (which won't be changing) so there is absolutely so point dragging this out. this shouldn't of even continued over the first day as it's evident that you class the concept of racism completely different to myself (you being white and me being an ethnic minority does dictate how we see things [and no, it doesn't mean the latter is more blinded, deluded, over-sensitive, etc.]). there's nothing about 'black pity' that comes into this equation, as i already said i wasn't personally offended, but rather the blame in any situation like this should be placed on the one whose saying the 'jokes' and not the people at the other end of the joke. and the fact that racism is very, very often disguised in forms of 'jokes' to argue the exact points you're making. i've seen it far too many times and even been on the receiving end numerous times. i'm assuming you'd class someone saying "would you be white if you could?" as a joke/shouldn't take it seriously as they were only 'joking'. or even "your hair is like a sponge/sheeps fur", should i not be offended as it was a 'joke'? context + it being a joke = doesn't equate to no harm or offense being done. racism (or any 'isms', etc.) just isn't as simple as some people assume them to be, especially when it comes to definitions. and there is absolutely nothing malicious about not being moved if someone dies (who i don't know, don't have any interests in or follow). i'm not going to be upset if a random person in the next street died because i just don't know the person. i would, however be more upset if the queen died because i have an interest in her. if that makes me 'unprincipled' then so be it. yet your stance on casual racism is not unprincipled, and more accepting as it's supposedly only a 'joke'?

lets just conclude this here and agree to disagree. we both aren't going to convince the other of anything, and the only thing that'll end up happening is personal insults slowly seeping in (which have already started). i respect your opinions, because they are of your own and i'm not going to be offended by people who have different views, as i expect that to happen and i don't expect to change other people's opinions either. so whether you can do the same or not, is your prerogative. mind you, i did actually find it all quite interesting. but i'm going to assume that you didn't/probably just saw me as a fly you can't get rid of.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I say again only because you have the words totally mixed up, how can it be racism (ignore the casual bit, that doesn't even make sense if you think about it because casual is a contextual word and not a definition) which is a negative view/hatred of a race of people when the Duke has not said anything remotely like that - therefore as he has not said anything racist (according to the definition) then he is not a racist. The only meaning 'casual racism' can be is in a casual context, trying to slur unpolitically correct language by slipping the word casual infront of racist doesn't make whats being said racist. Indeed, the use of the term 'casual racism' seems to me to be an effort to merely stigmatise un-PC language.

Racism - a hatred or negative views of people of a differing race.

Contexts of racism;

Typical standard form of racism - used in a speech, in debate, in argument.

Casual Racism - an offhand remark used passively "those criminal n-word's down the road"

...now that example would be casual racism, because its a negative or hateful remark towards black people but used casually or passively. As I said earlier on time and time again, you're confusing unpolitically correct language regarding races with racism when they're entirely different.

Learn the difference, because otherwise you just demean efforts to combat actual racism.

[Kardan]

The fact is, the Duke has said racist remarks in the past, so you could describe him as a racist. Of course, there are much worse types of racism, but it doesn't detract from the fact that he is racist.

[dirrty]

I say again only because you have the words totally mixed up, how can it be racism (ignore the casual bit, that doesn't even make sense if you think about it because casual is a contextual word and not a definition) which is a negative view/hatred of a race of people when the Duke has not said anything remotely like that - therefore as he has not said anything racist (according to the definition) then he is not a racist. The only meaning 'casual racism' can be is in a casual context, trying to slur unpolitically correct language by slipping the word casual infront of racist doesn't make whats being said racist. Indeed, the use of the term 'casual racism' seems to me to be an effort to merely stigmatise un-PC language.

Racism - a hatred or negative views of people of a differing race.

Contexts of racism;

Typical standard form of racism - used in a speech, in debate, in argument.

Casual Racism - an offhand remark used passively "those criminal n-word's down the road"

...now that example would be casual racism, because its a negative or hateful remark towards black people but used casually or passively. As I said earlier on time and time again, you're confusing unpolitically correct language regarding races with racism when they're entirely different.

Learn the difference, because otherwise you just demean efforts to combat actual racism.

i know the difference. that's why when i have referred to casual racism, i put 'casual racism'. when i say 'racism' that umbrella term includes the various levels of racism that co-exist with each other. and in reference to the bolded green part, that doesn't excuse or mean that it's acceptable. the remarks most definitely aren't needed. you're just trivialising casual racism (even saying that "its a negative or hateful remark towards black people") but dismissing its relevance because it was used in a casual manner. no, it's still racist (as casual racism falls within the arms of the term 'racism', whether you accept that or not).

racism and casual racism can both go hand-in-hand. there's no such thing as 'actual' racism. racism is racism. whether it's blatant, physical, off-hand, suggestive, whatever etc., it's still racism. i don't even know why you're still trying to prove otherwise to myself. i believe i have the right to define racism off the basis of whether an ethnic minority is, or will be offended by certain comments (especially since i am one, and therefore have a different view to yourself because i have, and will be subjected to racist comments throughout my life). i'm just waiting for you to say people are just far too 'sensitive'. i was offended by the examples i gave you in my previous post because they were racist comments; ones which were passed off/disguised as casual racism. you're basically saying that one shouldn't be offended because casual racism 'isn't real racism' (but rather "stigmatising un-PC language"), which is pretty much insulting and excusing the behaviour of those who throw off-remark comments, which underneath the 'casual' exterior is plagued with racist undertones. political correctness or not, comments at the expense of others (who will, and do) find them offensive (and they're finding them offensive because the comments/'jokes' are insulting/degrading to their differences compared to the standardised/ideal look of the west).

you can throw whatever definitions you want, but you can't simply condense a topic so vast into one short sentence as it's far, far too simplified. that is applicable to basically everything. nothing in life is as simple as a short sentence.