Originally posted by Flyer
Im not even sure what an outgroup is but it depends on the words used.

Youll have to give men instances of the context and words used for me to make up my mind.

But you essentially say that even considering the association of a negative labels to certain social groups (an outgroup is a group to which you don't belong) can be viewed as racist (i.e., the judge was).

I study prejudice and racism, so what you were saying was, basically, that I am also racist, just for considering that people do associate outgroups with negative labels. That when I accept that generally calling certain people 'paki' can be viewed of as racist/prejudicial, I must be racist myself.

The judge has essentially acted correctly - the person used race/national identity in a demeaning manner and/or as a relevant issue during a criminal offence. Thus, assaulting someone is a crime, assaulting them whilst calling them a 'paki' etc is a racially aggravated assault. Even if they are incorrect in their judgment of social group (i.e., the person was indian), it shouldn't matter. The intent was there.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I study prejudice and racism, so what you were saying was, basically, that I am also racist, just for considering that people do associate outgroups with negative labels. That when I accept that generally calling certain people 'paki' can be viewed of as racist/prejudicial, I must be racist myself.

It depends, if I use that term as a shortened term for Pakistani as I use the term Aussies for a shortened term for Australian and Brits etc.

If you automatically assume Im a racist for using that term then youd be wrong.

Originally posted by melatonin
Thus, assaulting someone is a crime, assaulting them whilst calling them a 'paki' etc is a racially aggravated assault. Even if they are incorrect in their judgment of social group (i.e., the person was indian), it shouldn't matter. The intent was there.

"paki" when used in that context is generally considered an insult, "English" has never been considered and insult unless of course you must hate the English, hence why I said the judge is probably racist.

If doesnt matter what you call them while you assault them it should still be the same crime if you attacked them because of their skin colour, choice of football team, the colour of the shirt their wearing or if they slept with your girlfriend.

It should still be the same sentence. The funny thing in this case, the word bitch should have been seen of more of an insult, why wasnt he bought up on sexism charges?

Originally posted by Flyer
No its not, its not any worse than calling her stupid. Ive seen plenty of women use this term on other women, it doesnt mean they are sexist.

Ive used similar terms against other men, its just a description, nothing more.

So a male manager in an office calls a female member of his staff a stupid woman.

What do you think is going to happen at the tribuneral?

£50k to the lady. Every single time.

Originally posted by Flyer
If you automatically assume Im a racist for using that term then youd be wrong.

Sorry Flyer, if I heard anyone say that word, then 'racist' would be the first word I would be thinking of.

p.s. I do not consider the involvement of potentially racist tems in a discussion be a racist act

[edit on 7/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by Flyer
It depends, if I use that term as a shortened term for Pakistani as I use the term Aussies for a shortened term for Australian and Brits etc.

If you automatically assume Im a racist for using that term then youd be wrong.

Well, I've just used it myself, twice, and I hope I didn't come across as racist. It does depend on context, otherwise I would not have done so.

Thus, a black guy can call another black guy a 'cutiepie', but I wouldn't even go there.

"paki" when used in that context is generally considered an insult, "English" has never been considered and insult unless of course you must hate the English, hence why I said the judge is probably racist.

Not at all. The issue here is that during the offence, the issue of nationality was given emphasis by the guy. Therefore it can be covered by the law.

Thus, as I tried to point out, even if you assault someone and say "have that you scottish c*&t", but the guy was actually Irish, it is still within the law to prosecute as it being racially aggravated. Same situation here, the guy used the emphasis on 'english', but she was 'welsh'. It still falls into the racially aggravated box.

You might not agree with this law, but that's a different issue. I don't see this as a case of using 'english' as being an insult to the welsh (which many welsh may be insulted by), but as using nationality as an emphasis during a crime - which is why I'm trying to show it this way.

It should still be the same sentence. The funny thing in this case, the word bitch should have been seen of more of an insult, why wasnt he bought up on sexism charges?

Such issues are being given special attention for good reasons. Prejudice and racism are a scourge on society. It affects society at every level. And as such it deserves special attention. It should not be tolerated in schools, in work, in crime, anywhere. And this is one way to get the message across.

I don't think there are laws for sexually-aggravated crimes (in the way race can be, maybe 'hate' crimes would be the way to go). Maybe we should bring one in just to vex daily mail readers...

[edit on 7-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by skibtz

Sorry Flyer, if I heard anyone say that word, then 'racist' would be the first word I would be thinking of.

and thats just the reason why its used in that context, take away the offence caused and the word becomes powerless.

All this stupid over the top racism stuff just empowers the racists and actually helps them achieve their goal.

Me, I dont see how the word should be any different from the word Aussie or the word Brit, its just a shortened version of a country name.

Originally posted by melatonin
Such issues are being given special attention for good reasons. Prejudice and racism are a scourge on society. It affects society at every level. And as such it deserves special attention. It should not be tolerated in schools, in work, in crime, anywhere. And this is one way to get the message across.

No it isnt, it just devalues the real racist cases, ones where employers wont employ black people or kids are beaten up because their colour of their skin.

Someone threw a burger in a box at my friend because his girlfriend has dark skin, he called him a taliban #er. Now my friend is pretty intelligent and he new the guy wanted a fight. He picked up the box when it landed at his feet and thanked the guy and said he was hungry anyway. Now this made the guy even more angry and made him look really stupid. Thats a much better way of combating it than running off to the police because then the guy has achieved his goal of offending you.

Originally posted by Flyer
No it isnt, it just devalues the real racist cases, ones where employers wont employ black people or kids are beaten up because their colour of their skin.

No, it's a zero tolerance approach. It devalues nothing, all these situations can be valued as they should be. All can be classed as real.

Thus, someone being prejudiced in their employment decisions will be treated according to the law, and so will racially aggravated crimes.

Thats a much better way of combating it than running off to the police because then the guy has achieved his goal of offending you.

Maybe it is. But a zero tolerance approach has made the situation uncomfortable for racists. And I quite like that.

Originally posted by Flyer
All this stupid over the top racism stuff just empowers the racists and actually helps them achieve their goal.

Me, I dont see how the word should be any different from the word Aussie or the word Brit, its just a shortened version of a country name.

I believe that tolerating racism in any form helps racists achieve their goals.

Some words are rendered taboo due to hateful use and abuse such as the word 'spastic' in the UK. Once a perfectly innocent medical term now obselete in the main due to it's hateful use in the past 25 years or so.

The P-word and N-word etc. are no different.

Words such as these have a history that allows the owner the right to use them and the right to not have them used against them. A history that should be respected.

And respect, or the lack of, is what lies at the heart of these issues.

[edit on 7/12/2007 by skibtz]

Originally posted by melatonin

Maybe it is. But a zero tolerance approach has made the situation uncomfortable for racists. And I quite like that.

I disagree, it means they have achieved their goal of annoying the other person.

Right, so for the person being targetted, it is their issue, they need to get over it and change approach. Rather than we need to change the behaviour of racists and bigots.

Cool. No thanks.

Originally posted by Flyer
...just devalues the real racist

At what stage does racism become real for you Flyer?

her reply should have been you stupid paddie put down the guiness more often you might hit less parked cars. that would have made more since than taking him to court for racial slurs. also he should remember he is a guest worker in a foriegn land be respectful of their people.

Originally posted by Flyer
When the person is actually racist

What is actually racist? Just a little bit racist?

Are you seriously saying there was no racist undertow to the man's comments when he used nationality to offend her?

not when people say something others consider offensive.

So now we are not allowed to be offended when someone attacks us?

If you call someone a fat bastard in the heat of the moment, it doesnt mean you hate all fat people, does it?

Fat Bastard?

Please put forward like for like.

Just about anyone has the potential to be fat, stupid etc. for some people it is a standard of living.

Some people like to be fat.

Some people couldn't give a sh*t that they are 'stupid'

My viewpoint is that because you do not choose what nationality/race/colour you are, you should not have to defend these attributes.

Originally posted by skibtz
What is actually racist? Just a little bit racist?

Are you seriously saying there was no racist undertow to the man's comments when he used nationality to offend her?

Yes, as I pointed out, if you call someone a fat or ginger bastard in an argument, it doesnt mean you are biased against those people.

Originally posted by skibtz
Some people couldn't give a sh*t that they are 'stupid'

My viewpoint is that because you do not choose what nationality/race/colour you are, you should not have to defend these attributes.

People dont have the choice of being ginger, do you consider anything said about them to be as bad as racism?

People are so PC today that they cant wait to be offended by anything, one of my best friend from school was black, we used to use racial terms on each other all the time, it was no different than someone being tall or short, fat or thin.

There was no hint of racism yet people like you would be quick to jump on both of us as racist. Hell youd want us both to be up in front of a court despite us being good friends.

I fail to see how calling someone a name in the heat of an argument is ok if its anything but race, but its bad if you mention race.

This is completely different that real racism which Ive experience, ie an employer telling me hed never employ a black person.

This was nothing except a great waste of taxpayers money.