Sick of Harry & Meghan?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
  georgenorman  09 Mar 21 3.29pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Frickin Saweet
what you're saying is of course completely right, but would Harry and Megan really go out of their way to make the context appear like it had deliberately racist motivations, if it didn't? With all the people they've met and international circles they've mixed in you'd have thought that they would be savvy enough to spot whether there was a bad intention behind someones words. I guess what I'm saying is, both sides can't be right on this - either someone is ignorant enough to make that sort of insensitive/racist comment on the RF side, or H&M are that deviant about their own interests to make it up. Pretty sad whichever way you look at it. Of course they would - they are trying to damage the 'firm' (Charles and William in particular) and are using every card they can.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| martin2412 Living The Dream 09 Mar 21 6.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
You're talking about the person. I'm talking about whether a behaviour or action is by definition racist. Whether the person meant it or not in that context is irrelevant. But just because you don't say something with intention or out of naivity doesn't make a statement or action, for example, any less racist. It also doesn't mean that you're exempt from repercussion simply because of your own ignorance. Logically that makes no sense at all – try applying that to law. Just because you didn't know about a law and you broke it, doesn't make you immune to the consequences. What it might do is reduce your sentence, vs someone who broke it with intent, sure. But that's not what is being discussed. Only in your opinion. Not mine. Here's a scenario: White bloke calls a black bloke a black bar5tard, and it is witnessed by an old lady who is shocked and calls the police. The police turn up and ask the old lady what she saw. She says that the white man racially abused the 'coloured' man, and that something should be done about it. In your eyes the old lady is a racist because she used the term that is currently deemed as offensive. What a load of b0llocks.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 09 Mar 21 7.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Frickin Saweet
when that word is no longer used as an abbreviation but as a derogatory term then it crosses the path into offensive/racist. You can play the idiot and pretend it's not, but we used to call Asian kids that at school that as an insult, meant to be the worst thing we could call them. Not proud of admitting that, it was their 'cuss' and we all had one but that was the one for the Asians. To pretend otherwise is as stupid as we were back then for using it. You are missing my point. I am asking what actually makes it offensive?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 09 Mar 21 7.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Looks like Piers Morgan is leaving GMTV because of what he said about some of the subject matter in the Megan interview...
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 09 Mar 21 7.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by martin2412
Only in your opinion. Not mine. Here's a scenario: White bloke calls a black bloke a black bar5tard, and it is witnessed by an old lady who is shocked and calls the police. The police turn up and ask the old lady what she saw. She says that the white man racially abused the 'coloured' man, and that something should be done about it. In your eyes the old lady is a racist because she used the term that is currently deemed as offensive. What a load of b0llocks. You’re literally fighting logic here
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 09 Mar 21 7.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Looks like Piers Morgan is leaving GMTV because of what he said about some of the subject matter in the Megan interview... And the winner is.... woke!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| martin2412 Living The Dream 09 Mar 21 7.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC
You’re literally fighting logic here You're the one who reckons that you don't need intent to be a racist, so is the old lady a racist ?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 09 Mar 21 7.27pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Eaglecoops
If someone shortens British to Brit, or Australian to Aussie, does that mean to call someone a Brit or Aussie is racist. I’m just asking because it strikes me it’s identical to shortening pakistani to ****? What exactly has made the term **** offensive and racist? You see even this website won’t let me use the word. I find it strange that what appears to be straightforward language is considered offensive. Edited by Eaglecoops (09 Mar 2021 2.38pm) It's due to how the word is typically used. The word 'Aussie' or 'Brit' isn't an insult or used to offend, whereas the word **** is routinely used to convey a dislike of a type of person. Terms that are descriptive can be co-opted and tainted. It's not really specific to race. If I saw a child who looked like they had physical and mental developmental issues and started referring to them as 'retarded' or a 'spastic' to their parents they might take offense at that even if the descriptive is accurate, based on the fact that these words are frequently used to insult rather than as benign descriptions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 09 Mar 21 7.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
It's due to how the word is typically used. The word 'Aussie' or 'Brit' isn't an insult or used to offend, whereas the word **** is routinely used to convey a dislike of a type of person. Terms that are descriptive can be co-opted and tainted. It's not really specific to race. If I saw a child who looked like they had physical and mental developmental issues and started referring to them as 'retarded' or a 'spastic' to their parents they might take offense at that even if the descriptive is accurate, based on the fact that these words are frequently used to insult rather than as benign descriptions. Ill never cease to find it amazing that fairly simplistic concepts about context and language are so hard for so many to understand. Further, that people simply can’t seem to grasp that language and meanings evolve. They’re changing all the time. The world, and language, doesn’t stand still.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cpfc1861 09 Mar 21 7.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Hate to be the guy to accuse somebody of bulls*** but does anybody find meghan raising the mental health issue with HR weird surely a doctor would be more appropriate I reckon she never raised anything she's full of s*** also if they truly felt a member was racist they would name them they're either being ambigious for a future interview or it didn't happen.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 09 Mar 21 7.43pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
I say look at what social liberalism has done to your country.....it's been increasing in dominance since the sixties. Idealists waffle about concepts, I say look at what the practical results of their ideas have been. The countries with the highest IQs don't allow egalitarianism (its globalist forms anyway) into their institutions because they can see what its practical affects are. Never let someone talk you into supporting what goes against your self interest. Instead look at what the elites do, not what they say....Look at cause and effect, look at how both are portrayed. Compare to the past. Follow the money to understand holistic motives. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Mar 2021 7.46pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 09 Mar 21 7.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
As for the Harry and Meghan stuff, I do think they approached this in the wrong way. Clearly I'm not privy to the ins and outs but to me it seems like she just wasn't a good fit for the duty aspect of what being a Royal is. Maybe the family didn't step in enough to defend them against the press, but that's not straight forward and this interview was over the top and damaging as response. Meghan didn't seem to have much concern for her Father's treatment by the press, in fact she bought right into that. The 'Guess Who?' racist comment stuff is unhelpful. They should either say who said something, what was said, and when or not bring this up at all. Realistically they know that the Royal Family can't adequately address this and so I'm inclined to believe that factors into why it's being said now. Really it would be better to address this privately at the time so that people can learn and move on from it, and I can't help but think that financial factor (by virtue of boosting their profile) into laying into the Royals in an Oprah interview. I see Harry as someone who has become overly reliant on his other half and what she wants, rather than conveying to her that being part of the Royal Family isn't going to be an easy ride or about the self. Meghan wanted the Royal tag, but with none of the obligations and realities of that life. Now she wants to maintain that connection while they both slag off the royal family to their own advantage. It's perhaps the Hollywood and soap opera aspect that I don't like and that family stuff shouldn't be aired in public. Harry puts himself in a very vulnerable position here. I can see Meghan eventually 'moving on', then he might wish he'd tried to find more of a balance in these matters.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.