Post by EdmundPost by MarkI keep out of these discussions as a rule. I won't stay silent on this,
though.
Ah you are a man who lives by his principles I see
I do. Rules are not principles, and self-imposed rules can always be
sidelined. As I have done on this occasion.
I suspect that based on your response, I am wasting my time in writing
this, but I'll give it one more go.
Post by EdmundPost by MarkIt is not possible to raise a racial epithet - particularly one that is
particularly charged - in response to an open debate and then saying
there is no racial meaning...which is what you've done.
That is your opinion sir and I do not agree.
On which bit do you not agree?
That it's not racial? It's related to race, so I can't imagine you
disagree with that.
That it's a particularly charged epithet? I think that there is plenty
of objective evidence that this is a sensitive term to use given its
connection in the anglophone world (and we are using English, after all)
to the United States and its undeniable race issue over many years.
That you raised it? Clearly you did.
That you denied it was racial? I'm going to assume you won't claim you
haven't rejected it as racial.
So, I'm going to *guess* you're claiming it's possible to do all of the
first few things and yet the denial was valid.
If you want anyone to take you seriously on this, you have to more than
deny it. You have to explain your thinking and rebut or (if you can)
refute it.
Post by EdmundBTW it was Louise...
Incidentally, the "Louise" thing is just juvenile. Seriously, cut it
out.
Post by Edmund...who introduced the “ racial” thing, not me, that is
exactly the reason I replied the way I did.
How did he? I seem to remember a number of occasions (and I'm sure
there are more) from his very start in F1 when race was raised against
him not vice versa.
Post by EdmundAbout an “open debate”, there is nothing open about to try shutting up
people by labeling them as racists and consider the matter closed.
Who is trying to close down an open debate?
I have suggested that you clarify your use of what I (strongly) believe
to be racially-motivated language and consider apologising for it.
At no point did I try to close down the debate.
I *do* now consider that (given this response) you are confirming that
you are racist.
That doesn't stop the debate. On the contrary, if I were you I'd think
about that and continue the debate in order to clarify your position.
Or, as I said in my last post, people will be entitled to draw their own
conclusions. I know that I have.
Post by EdmundPost by MarkSimilarly, if people cannot call out such a situation without being
accused of labelling "everything" as racist, then nothing is racist.
That's simply untenable.
Again that is your opinion,
Yes. That's why I wrote it.
Post by Edmundwe probably have VERY different opinions
about what is racism and what is not but you will have a very hard
time to find anything at all in my entire life where I treated someone
different because of the color of a skin.
Would you use the same words to (say) Kimi Raikkonen as the ones that
have triggered this debate?
If not, you have treated Lewis Hamilton differently because of the
colour of his skin, have you not?
Post by EdmundThe things Louise said are so utterly absurd I have no words for it.
And yet you have put a *lot* of words out, but they are ad hominem
(and, I would say racist) attacks rather than addressing what you view
to be the absurdity of his argument.
What do you object to in his words?
If you explain that, there can be a reasonable debate which might come
to a reasonable outcome.
Calling him (offensive) names creates great heat and no light.
Post by EdmundHe is so incredibly privileged his entire life but doesn’t have the
faintest idea about it nor what is going on in the real world outside
his multi million dollar bubble.
He certainly hasn't been privileged his *entire* life, but certainly he
has become very privileged. Much as I'm not a fan of people famous for
one area using their platform unduly, he has a right to express his
political opinion on this and other things. If he gets it wrong,
address his opinion not his skin colour or his perceived race.
Post by EdmundHe is calling people ignorant for saying very obvious things, claiming
and whining how disadvantaged he is because of his skin color as if he
is rescued from a cotton field,
Again, the attachment to slave-related tropes.
Post by Edmundhe’s calling NORMAL people out for
eating meat, how delusional can a person be?
Lots of people campaign against meat eating, either entirely or in terms
of volume.
I don't see you campaigning against PETA.
I also don't see the connection between this and blatant attacks against
him personally.
Post by EdmundHe alone has a carbon footprint of whole continent and is telling us to
stop eating meat to save the world!? Still I may not respond to this
kind of stupidity because that will make me a racist? Yeah right!
No.
It's really easy to quote his views and explain why you think they're
batshit crazy. Pick them apart line by line, provide context and
explain why you believe he's wrong.
None of it requires calling him what you called him.
It is *that* which will make you a racist, not disagreeing with him.
See the difference?
Post by EdmundPeople riding the high horse and telling they don’t respond to bigots
racists or whatever are actually saying they have absolutely NOTHING to
say or debunk and therefore avoid speaking about the actual content by
disqualifying others.
Well, I'm not one of them. I have been very clear on the matter, and I
*am* explaining my position.
I'm struggling to see what your argument is because you have just
insulted the person (ad hominem) rather than going to the point (ad
rem).
Just focus on _what_ you don't agree with and avoid just attacking _who_
you don't agree with
Post by EdmundSo, try to find some kind of argument or something to debunk anything I
said, if you cannot come up with anything better then bluntly calling me
a racist, don’t bother.
How's that?
Post by EdmundPost by MarkIt's possible to accidentally use the wrong language, but the right
response is to back down and apologise. It's possible to (accidentally)
use racist language without being a racist...but to insist on using it
pretty much defines being a racist.
It’s equally possible you are a little oversensitive to the word negro,
if so, there is no shame in admitting that you are.
If I am speaking Spanish (which I do), I have no problem with the word
as it simply means "black" and has no racial overtones that I am aware
of, at least in the way in which I employ it. (Of course, I am not a
native Spanish speaker, so if I am wrong I am happy to be corrected at
which stage I would apologise).
If I am speaking English, I will not use the word. It has significant
racial overtones, and it's inappropriate.
I have a simple "rule of thumb": I do not use a word to describe someone
that I have good reason to believe they will find offensive *unless* I
am trying to offend them...and even then, I would choose my word
carefully and proportionately, and have to live with the consequences of
insulting the person to that level.
There are few situations where you can go wrong with that principle in
my experience, and conversely going against that principle will get you
into trouble.
I have good reason to believe that black people will find that word
offensive, so I will not use it. I don't think that makes me
oversensitive.
I think that makes me: _respectful_.
Post by EdmundPost by MarkPersonally, I would suggest retracting your comments and apologising, or
I think people are entitled to draw the obvious inference.
It's entirely up to you, however.
At least you’ve got that part right!
I think I have a lot more than that right.
Feel free to address my arguments above if you believe I'm wrong.
Remember: address the argument not the individual.