egafd.com

Did you see that yesterday someone was convicted of 'racially aggravated.....' for calling a New Zealander an Australian?

If you really think calling a person with ginger hair a 'ginger twat' and calling a black person a 'nigger' or 'black cunt' then you're being overly simplistic.

It's not really about how offended the person on the receiving end is. I'm of the opinion that offence is just as much taken as it is given, but for the person calling the names, knowing the different histories involved between both insults, you'd have to question the motives and character of the insulter much more, I feel, over attacking a person's race rather than a person's weight, big nose, crooked teeth or hair colour.

Having a big nose, ginger hair or fat gut are physical characteristics of said person, but they're not WHO they are. That is another important difference.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Having a big nose, ginger hair or fat gut are physical
> characteristics of said person, but they're not WHO they are.
> That is another important difference.


Skin colour, hair colour, nose size ... all are physical characteristics that you're born with and that form part of your identity as a person. All part of WHO you are.

How about when a black person calls a white person "cracker" or "honkey" or "white bitch"?

Is that less "offensive" than saying something like "black cunt" or "coon" because - hey - it's only the black folks getting their own back a bit because some of their ancestors were enslaved?

- Eric

Flat_Eric, I believe you are being disingenuous when you state that calling someone a black whatever is no different than calling someone a fat whatever or a ginger whatever.

Also, what is it with you and some of the others who post in this forum when it comes to name-calling? Did your parents and teachers not teach you that it was bad manners to call people names?

You are of course free to believe whatever you want to believe. It's a free country (well, free-ish anyway).

Plus I'm not sure what you mean by "name calling". What exactly are you referring to that I've said on here that you feel is "bad manners"?

- Eric

a m playlist wrote:

> Flat_Eric, I believe you are being disingenuous when you state
> that calling someone a black whatever is no different than
> calling someone a fat whatever or a ginger whatever.


By "no different" I assume you mean "no worse".

Well, all I can say is that you might believe different if you were fat / ginger and being insulted about your fatness / gingerness.

I very much doubt that you'd be taking comfort by thinking to yourself "could be worse - at least I'm not black".

- Eric

Flat_Eric wrote:

> And the supreme irony of course is that the members of said
> "Society of Black Laywers" also earn a VERY tidy living from
> all this supposed "racism".
>
> After all, if no-one was "racist" (note my use of inverted
> commas), the bastards would find themselves out of some very
> lucrative work.
>
> - Eric

Do my eyes deceive me, or does the above not show that you called the Society of Black Lawyers bastards? Or were you stating a fact, that all members of the Society of Black Lawyers were born out of wedlock?

Calling people names is bad manners. If, Flat_Eric, you're over the age of eighteen, I suggest you start to grow-up, and grow-up fast, at that.

Wait a minute - we weren't comparing white-on-black vs black-on-white racism. All forms of racism should be equally bad in my book.

I was specifically talking about picking up on a person's race vs picking up on some physical characteristic like a big nose, ginger hair, fat arse etc...

They're different. You must realise that you would label yourself 'white' over any other single physical characteristic and being white is more about WHO you are than the curliness of your hair, or how much your ears stick out.

a m playlist wrote:

> Do my eyes deceive me, or does the above not show that you
> called the Society of Black Lawyers bastards? Or were you
> stating a fact, that all members of the Society of Black
> Lawyers were born out of wedlock?
>
> Calling people names is bad manners. If, Flat_Eric, you're
> over the age of eighteen, I suggest you start to grow-up, and
> grow-up fast, at that.


Do come down off your high horse, mr. playlist! That's a figure of speech as well you know, and completely different to calling someone names to their face - which is the subject of this thread.

So you've never in your life referred to someone (or some group of people) who's annoyed you as "bastards" (or similar) when you've been in conversation with a third party?

Or even thought it quietly to yourself?

No? Well either you're a saint or a fucking liar - one of the two (and that my friend is not "calling you names", it's "stating a fact").

In my book, such a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou yet extremely snide, snotty and patronising way of talking to people is every bit as unpleasant, offensive and "bad manners" as just coming straight out with it and calling someone a cunt.

Have a nice day!

- Eric

Sam Slater wrote:

> Wait a minute - we weren't comparing white-on-black vs
> black-on-white racism. All forms of racism should be equally
> bad in my book.

Fair enough Sam.

- Eric