Madonna Loves disni66a!

First topic message reminder :

20th January 2014

So, she believed it was ok, she then reiterated that it was ok, then apologised.

Will she still think there was nothing wrong with saying it?  Probably.

So why did she feel compelled to change her life?

Please discuss.

Madonna on Saturday apologised for using a racial slur on Instagram to refer to her white son, a day after calling those who criticised her language "haters".

On Friday night the singer posted a picture of her 13-year-old son Rocco boxing, and included the comment: "No one messes with Dirty Soap! Mama said knock you out!" She then added “#disnigga”.

The singer quickly deleted the comment after Instagram users berated her for the use of the word, though she was initially defiant. But in a statement to the Associated Press on Saturday, Madonna said: "Forgive me."

The statement said: "I am sorry if I offended anyone with my use of the N word on Instagram. It was not meant as a racial slur. I am not a racist. There's no way to defend the use of the word. It was all about intention. It was used as a term of endearment toward my son who is white. I appreciate that it's a provocative word and I apologise if it gave people the wrong impression."

Besides Rocco, Madonna has three other children, including Lourdes, David and Mercy. Mercy and David are black, adopted from the African nation of Malawi.

Earlier this month, Madonna posted a photo of Rocco and his two young friends holding up bottles of liquor. She defended the post as a joke, posting on Instagram: "No one was drinking we were just having fun! Calm down and get a sense of humor! Don't start the year off with judgement!"


http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jan/18/madonna-apologises-racial-term-instagram

Exactly, that is what is signifies.

Oh wait, this too!

Oh God, why don't people understand why it means so much when they have so much evidence of the cruelty inflicted.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:So basically all this stuff about context and taking the word back and everything is just crap used as smokes and mirrors.

Black people are allowed to use the word however they like.  White people are not allowed to use even when the context of use makes it patently clear that it is not being used as a racial slur but is being used in exactly the same context which is acceptable for black people.

The whites will go straight to the back of the bus and only drink from the fountains put aside for their use.

Did you really just compare taboo-ing the n-word for white people to the segregated South? Holy fuck!

RW'ers are hung up on the reverse discrimination part.  Basically what we are talking about here is, if it is permissible for blacks to use the word, it is a denial of the RW "equal right" to use the term to deny them.  In this day and age, RW'ers are preoccupied with that reciprocal argument.

All things should be equal and all that.  Reverse discrimination, as in quotas, drives them bat-shit.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:So basically all this stuff about context and taking the word back and everything is just crap used as smokes and mirrors.

Black people are allowed to use the word however they like.  White people are not allowed to use even when the context of use makes it patently clear that it is not being used as a racial slur but is being used in exactly the same context which is acceptable for black people.

The whites will go straight to the back of the bus and only drink from the fountains put aside for their use.

Did you really just compare taboo-ing the n-word for white people to the segregated South? Holy fuck!

How exactly do you think segregation came about? You think all the people woke up one morning and went hey lets refuse to have anything to do with the blacks?

It started all very subtly - slaves would ride in the back of the wagon cause there were not seats up front -then you have the argument that because of history blacks are used to travelling in the back and before you know it black people are not even allowed to sit up front even when there are seats.

It is unacceptable to me for any race to be telling any other race that what they may or may not do. I would not accept whites telling blacks they were not allowed to use the word honky and I do not accept blacks telling whites they are not allowed to use nigger.

I repeat I do not use the word - and I dont want anyone white or black to use it - but if anyone is going to be allowed to use it then everyone should be allowed to use it.

Separation and segregation start off with "logical" rules that mean one group can do something the other group cannot - saying blacks can use the word and whites cannot is just as segregationist as saying whites can drink from the fountain and blacks cannot.

I am genuinely not racist - I dont care what your race is it does not give you any privileges that do not extend to other races.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Did you really just compare taboo-ing the n-word for white people to the segregated South? Holy fuck!

RW'ers are hung up on the reverse discrimination part.  Basically what we are talking about here is, if it is permissible for blacks to deny them use the word, it is a denial of the RW "equal right" to use the term.  In this day and age, RW'ers are preoccupied with that reciprocal argument.

All things should be equal and all that.  Reverse discrimination, as in quotas, drives them bat-shit.

Meanwhile the left claim dedication to equality through the rule all animals are equal just some are more equal than others.

Either everyone is treated the same or some people are treated differently - and it is my belief that however good the reasons are for some people being treated differently believing that is equal will always result in huge misjustice

Please note I am not saying all people should be treated the same in all circumstances.

One last photo; here's Samuel L. Jackson, "Nick Fury" from the Avengers.



Born in 1948. The same year U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond said this in a speech as he was campaigning for President of the United States:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Let's get some AV on that!



When Jackson was 15 ...

Bobby Frank Cherry, Thomas Blanton,[1] Herman Frank Cash, and Robert Chambliss, members of United Klans of America, a Ku Klux Klan group, planted a box of dynamite with a time delay under the steps of the (16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama), near the basement.[2] At about 10:22 a.m., twenty-six children were walking into the basement assembly room to prepare for the sermon entitled “The Love That Forgives,” when the bomb exploded.[3][4] Four girls, Addie Mae Collins (age 14), Denise McNair (age 11), Carole Robertson (age 14), and Cynthia Wesley (age 14), were killed in the attack,[5] and 22 additional people were injured, one of whom was Addie Mae Collins' younger sister, Sarah.

Really not that long ago that in America, hearing the n-word meant you were about to get attacked or killed. I don't know why anybody would be so angry that the word is taboo.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Holy shit, I'm white and I don't get to call black people n-----s without being called a racist! You know what that's exactly as bad as?

This!

What had they done Ben?

Or don't you know?

Sphinx, I have taken great pains to explain proportional equality, versus distributive equality, to you both here (I think) and on ADO...I know.

Distributive equality is just an arbitrary point on the scale.  All equality is ultimately proportional.  If I have a thoroughbred race horse, and you have an old plug, it is proportionally fair that you start with a head-start or so down the track.  

Likewise, if you lived in a society that deliberately held back people of colour--didn't let them learn to read or write, didn't let them own property, didn't let them vote, separate fountains, back of the bus, etc.--maybe it would be a bit more fair today to allow them a bit of a head-start in educational and job opportunities.  Not as recompense, but just to get them caught up.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Holy shit, I'm white and I don't get to call black people n-----s without being called a racist! You know what that's exactly as bad as?

This!

What had they done Ben?

Or don't you know?

They were Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, and they were accused of committing a robbery and murder. But before they could stand trial, an angry white mob pulled them out of jail and lynched them.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Holy shit, I'm white and I don't get to call black people n-----s without being called a racist! You know what that's exactly as bad as?

This!

What had they done Ben?

Or don't you know?

What had they done Andy. Be born with the wrong colour skin.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Holy shit, I'm white and I don't get to call black people n-----s without being called a racist! You know what that's exactly as bad as?

This!

What had they done Ben?

Or don't you know?

Andy, you're just an ignorant sod.  It's best if you don't try to learn.  Perhaps you haven't the capacity, eh?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


What had they done Ben?

Or don't you know?

They were Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, and they were accused of committing a robbery and murder. But before they could stand trial, an angry white mob pulled them out of jail and lynched them.

Well I think all of the regular posters here (not the foreign ones) know that i'm all for the rule of law, so i'd rather they had got a trial and maybe they were innocent - terrible.

We've had lynchings in the UK over the past couple of years I believe.

Yes, as I thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi

As for Quill, I asked a perfectly good question - my aim was to see whether they had been killed for being black, or for committing (sorry, believed) to have committed a crime.

We, here in Britain used to hang people for murder.

Over in America they still execute people for crimes. Black and white.

And, if those who have murdered, are caught by friends or relatives, they are often "executed". Whether they are black or white.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


What had they done Ben?

Or don't you know?

What had they done Andy.   Be born with the wrong colour skin.  

Oh dear sassy - be born white or black in America, murder someone and you could end up like this, even today!  :D 

BigAndy9 wrote:Yes, as I thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi

As for Quill, I asked a perfectly good question - my aim was to see whether they had been killed for being black, or for committing (sorry, believed) to have committed a crime.

We, here in Britain used to hang people for murder.

Over in America they still execute people for crimes.  Black and white.

And, if those who have murdered, are caught by friends or relatives, they are often "executed".  Whether they are black or white.

We have laws here in the U.S. that essentially punish people for sex-related crimes for the rest of their lives. You can look on a map and see where "registered sex offenders" in your area live.

Here's the thing -- you could have to register as a sex offender because you got drunk, took a public piss and accidentally were spotted by a kid. Nobody knows what the actual offense was, but that hasn't stopped vigilantes from deciding that jail or prison or whatever wasn't enough punishment for those people.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Yes, as I thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi

As for Quill, I asked a perfectly good question - my aim was to see whether they had been killed for being black, or for committing (sorry, believed) to have committed a crime.

We, here in Britain used to hang people for murder.

Over in America they still execute people for crimes.  Black and white.

And, if those who have murdered, are caught by friends or relatives, they are often "executed".  Whether they are black or white.

We have laws here in the U.S. that essentially punish people for sex-related crimes for the rest of their lives. You can look on a map and see where "registered sex offenders" in your area live.

Here's the thing -- you could have to register as a sex offender because you got drunk, took a public piss and accidentally were spotted by a kid. Nobody knows what the actual offense was, but that hasn't stopped vigilantes from deciding that jail or prison or whatever wasn't enough punishment for those people.

Same here.

What's that got to do with colour?

We're now losing the thread Ben. You tried to bring up lynching to win an emotional war with sphinx - it didn't work.

But the fault it didn't lies with you and Sphinx for not having enough empathy to realise the connection to the word.

Sassy wrote:But the fault it didn't lies with you and Sphinx for not having enough empathy to realise the connection to the word.

As I have said before - I doubt I would use the word in public, I wouldn't use it to upset anybody (maybe if they had annoyed me).

Really, all i'm arguing here is for the right of myself and others to use it, if we wish.

It's no different, in my opinion to the "gay" argument and any other derogatory word - I wouldn't talk about a fat pig if there was a fat woman around - I probably wouldn't care if there was a fat guy, or one of my fat mates.

It isn't funny if it hurts anybody, therefore I wouldn't hurt anybody.

But we should not tear people to pieces if they use the word, or make them feel terrible, small etc.

I've said it to Mr Catman several times, we can end up being the bullies and that is sad to watch from the outside looking in.

Not very well know facts...

Did you know Madonna rented Marc Almond's bedsit just before becoming famous?


...well now you do!

Just to add - remember, it's supposed to be "hate crimes" and only hate crimes - it isn't "crime" - it isn't criminal to use the words.

Madonna doesn't hate and BigAndy9 doesn't hate - i'm sure she probably said that in her apology  :D 

Joy Division wrote:Not very well know facts...

Did you know Madonna rented a Marc Almond's bedsit just before becoming famous?


...well now you do!

Que Mr Fawlty?

Where's the scratchy head emoticon????

BigAndy9 wrote:Just to add - remember, it's supposed to be "hate crimes" and only hate crimes - it isn't "crime" - it isn't criminal to use the words.

Madonna doesn't hate and BigAndy9 doesn't hate - i'm sure she probably said that in her apology   :D 

Although Madonna is beyond ripe now, I can put in a good word with you there Andy   

You just don't get it Andy.   Every time that world is used from the mouth of a white person, those are the pictures black people see.   The word has the power of the actions it enabled.   To take the sting out of this, some young black people have taken the word back, and use it between each other to take away the pictures and the actions associated with it.  The word is the hangings, the word is the burning, the word is the genitals cut off and stuffed in mouths, the word is the women raped and demeaned.   That is why the word simply cannot be used by white people.   It's not just a word, its all that pain.

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Just to add - remember, it's supposed to be "hate crimes" and only hate crimes - it isn't "crime" - it isn't criminal to use the words.

Madonna doesn't hate and BigAndy9 doesn't hate - i'm sure she probably said that in her apology   :D 

Although Madonna is beyond ripe now, I can put in a good word with you there Andy   

I'm more a Kylie man, thanks jd.

That sounds right to me Sassy, if a white person were to call a black person a 'nigga' , I think it would ring highly offensive.

We must all remember some black folk need only look at white folk and think of the slavery their ancestors were put through.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Yes, as I thought:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/28/vigilante-lee-james-life-murdering-bijan-ebrahimi

As for Quill, I asked a perfectly good question - my aim was to see whether they had been killed for being black, or for committing (sorry, believed) to have committed a crime.

We, here in Britain used to hang people for murder.

Over in America they still execute people for crimes.  Black and white.

And, if those who have murdered, are caught by friends or relatives, they are often "executed".  Whether they are black or white.

We have laws here in the U.S. that essentially punish people for sex-related crimes for the rest of their lives. You can look on a map and see where "registered sex offenders" in your area live.

Here's the thing -- you could have to register as a sex offender because you got drunk, took a public piss and accidentally were spotted by a kid. Nobody knows what the actual offense was, but that hasn't stopped vigilantes from deciding that jail or prison or whatever wasn't enough punishment for those people.

Same here.

What's that got to do with colour?

We're now losing the thread Ben.  You tried to bring up lynching to win an emotional war with sphinx - it didn't work.

I'm done. If those examples from history aren't enough to underline the cultural significance of the n-word in America, the pain and horror that are padlocked to that word from centuries of horrific, racism-driven oppression, there's nothing else I can say that will make you understand. I feel like I'm talking to the wall.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Although Madonna is beyond ripe now, I can put in a good word with you there Andy   

I'm more a Kylie man, thanks jd.

Much better choice, but can't put in a word there, as she's with me  

She just can't get me out of her head   

Sassy wrote:You just don't get it Andy.   Every time that world is used from the mouth of a white person, those are the pictures black people see.   The wordd has the power of the actions it enabled.   To take the sting out of this, some young black people have taken the word back, and use it between each other to take away the pictures and the actions associated with it.  The word is the hangings, the word is the burning, the word is the genitals cut off and stuffed in mouths, the word is the women raped and demeaned.   That is why the word simply cannot be used by white people.   It's not just a word, its all that pain.

So, they see the colour of somebody's skin and don't like what they say?

Fair enough sassy.

What a sad, racist world we live in.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

Same here.

What's that got to do with colour?

We're now losing the thread Ben.  You tried to bring up lynching to win an emotional war with sphinx - it didn't work.

I'm done. If those examples from history aren't enough to underline the cultural significance of the n-word in America, the pain and horror that are padlocked to that word from centuries of horrific, racism-driven oppression, there's nothing else I can say that will make you understand. I feel like I'm talking to the wall.

It's beyond me that people can't see that!

In truth ,mew should be ashamed of our white ancestors who played their part in black slavery.

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I'm more a Kylie man, thanks jd.

Much better choice, but can't put in a word there, as she's with me  

She just can't get me out of her head   

Poor, very poor! lol

Joy Division wrote:In truth ,mew should be ashamed of our white ancestors who played their part in black slavery.

jd - it's nowt to do with me and it's nowt to do with you.

Live your life the best you can and i'll do the same.

What happened to many was terrible - black and white throughout all the years of history - and I mean every year. And terrible rapes and murders are going on in the UK.

I will not blame myself though because I don't take part!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Joy Division wrote:In truth ,mew should be ashamed of our white ancestors who played their part in black slavery.

jd - it's nowt to do with me and it's nowt to do with you.

Live your life the best you can and i'll do the same.

What happened to many was terrible - black and white throughout all the years of history - and I mean every year.  And terrible rapes and murders are going on in the UK.

I will not blame myself though because I don't take part!

That's true Andy, but if we deny or fail to acknowledge just how bad our ancestors treated blacks is an insult to the ancestors of many black people.

Joy Division wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

jd - it's nowt to do with me and it's nowt to do with you.

Live your life the best you can and i'll do the same.

What happened to many was terrible - black and white throughout all the years of history - and I mean every year.  And terrible rapes and murders are going on in the UK.

I will not blame myself though because I don't take part!

That's true Andy, but if we deny or  fail to acknowledge just how bad our ancestors treated blacks is an insult to the ancestors of many black people.

I don't think I've ever in my 40 years heard anybody deny how badly groups of people have been treated in years gone by.

Have you?

Joy Division wrote:In truth ,mew should be ashamed of our white ancestors who played their part in black slavery.

Slavery was hardly Just a Whites thing...

African slaves first began getting purchased by the Barbary States. The Barbary States controlled a fair portion of the south Mediterranean/north Africa, was a vassal to the Ottoman Empire, also one of the few peoples that we confident crossing the Sahara giving them almost exclusive access to central African trade. They had a large need for Slaves to row their Galleys, the source of their military power in the region.
Basically, some Barbary traders were trading with a Central African warlord that had just taken a heap of captives that he was going to execute, they offered him goods to take them instead. This then created a culture of slaving in the region where Black African warlords would raid neighbouring tribes for slaves which the Barbary States would buy, as many as they offered for sale, which they would then on sell. The Barbary States maintained a monopoly on the slave trade out of central Africa for centuries before Europeans gained the Naval Superiority to Sail down to the Ivory coast and buy the Slaves Directly from the Warlords, ending the monopoly that the Barbary states had become so economically dependent.
Spain Reaching the Americas was the final nail in the coffin of Barbary Slave Monopoly.
the fall of the Barbary economy probably made it easier for later Europeans like Napoléon to cross the Mediterranean and take control of North Africa.


Fun Fact not really, but interesting.
The Irish were also a Major slave target for the Barbary traders, when the Church of England Separated from the Catholics and Ireland stayed Catholic the King Decided The Royal Navy would not protect them by stopping raiders/slavers crossing as long as they left England alone. this would fluctuate depending on the relationships between the King and Irish at the moment, the Barbary were always ready to make some cash when they had a chance to take slaves. They say they used to keep spies in the kings court, so they could have ships in the area when things were going downhill with the Irish relations.

lil andy wrote:As for Quill, I asked a perfectly good question - my aim was to see whether they had been killed for being black, or for committing (sorry, believed) to have committed a crime.

Your aim was to toss an insult at Black people, as if...let me just flaunt the pain you have suffered for the past century and a half.  

Don't try to bullshit me...I've dealt with racism all my life.  It's ugly, and it deserves no respect.

If you want to be a handmaiden to racism--and apparently you do--don't plead ignorance.  As B'rar Rabbit said, don't fuck with me boy...I's bred and born in the briar patch.

Uncle Remus wrote:"I was bred and born in the briar patch, Brer Fox," he called. "Born and bred in the briar patch."

And Brer Rabbit skipped away as merry as a cricket while Brer Fox ground his teeth in rage and went home.

Original Quill wrote:Sphinx, I have taken great pains to explain proportional equality, versus distributive equality, to you both here (I think) and on ADO...I know.

Distributive equality is just an arbitrary point on the scale.  All equality is ultimately proportional.  If I have a thoroughbred race horse, and you have an old plug, it is proportionally fair that you start with a head-start or so down the track.  

Likewise, if you lived in a society that deliberately held back people of colour--didn't let them learn to read or write, didn't let them own property, didn't let them vote, separate fountains, back of the bus, etc.--maybe it would be a bit more fair today to allow them a bit of a head-start in educational and job opportunities.  Not as recompense, but just to get them caught up.

By saying my old nag needs a head start you would be (correctly) saying that because of its genetic heritage it would not be able to compete in either speed or race endurance with the thoroughbred.

We have had racial equality for at least 30 years now - the black child born today has the same access to schooling etc etc as the white child.

Are you saying that after 30 years blacks have not yet caught up?

Are you saying that because of genetic heritage blacks are not able to compete without a head start?

Sassy wrote:You just don't get it Andy.   Every time that world is used from the mouth of a white person, those are the pictures black people see.   The word has the power of the actions it enabled.   To take the sting out of this, some young black people have taken the word back, and use it between each other to take away the pictures and the actions associated with it.  The word is the hangings, the word is the burning, the word is the genitals cut off and stuffed in mouths, the word is the women raped and demeaned.   That is why the word simply cannot be used by white people.   It's not just a word, its all that pain.

Yes Sassy we get that - but what you dont seem to get is that if a group is allowed to do something on the basis of their colour and that group are allowed to stop others doing it on the basis of their colour then pretty soon we end up right back where we started with racial segregation again.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Sphinx, I have taken great pains to explain proportional equality, versus distributive equality, to you both here (I think) and on ADO...I know.

Distributive equality is just an arbitrary point on the scale.  All equality is ultimately proportional.  If I have a thoroughbred race horse, and you have an old plug, it is proportionally fair that you start with a head-start or so down the track.  

Likewise, if you lived in a society that deliberately held back people of colour--didn't let them learn to read or write, didn't let them own property, didn't let them vote, separate fountains, back of the bus, etc.--maybe it would be a bit more fair today to allow them a bit of a head-start in educational and job opportunities.  Not as recompense, but just to get them caught up.

By saying my old nag needs a head start you would be (correctly) saying that because of its genetic heritage it would not be able to compete in either speed or race endurance with the thoroughbred.

Not at all. Not everything is genetic; some things are environmental. If you hadn't fed or sheltered the old nag, it could be suffering a lag.

sphinx wrote:We have had racial equality for at least 30 years now - the black child born today has the same access to schooling etc etc as the white child.

Are you saying that after 30 years blacks have not yet caught up?

We have not had 30 years of racial equality. We haven't even had 3. Two words: Trayvon Martin.

sphinx wrote:Are you saying that because of genetic heritage blacks are not able to compete without a head start?

No, I'm saying that owing to three hundred years (or more) of slavery, segregation, ostracism and cheap tricks like voter suppression, you have manipulated them into a disadvantaged position. They are entitled to a head start.

sphinx wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Sphinx, I have taken great pains to explain proportional equality, versus distributive equality, to you both here (I think) and on ADO...I know.

Distributive equality is just an arbitrary point on the scale.  All equality is ultimately proportional.  If I have a thoroughbred race horse, and you have an old plug, it is proportionally fair that you start with a head-start or so down the track.  

Likewise, if you lived in a society that deliberately held back people of colour--didn't let them learn to read or write, didn't let them own property, didn't let them vote, separate fountains, back of the bus, etc.--maybe it would be a bit more fair today to allow them a bit of a head-start in educational and job opportunities.  Not as recompense, but just to get them caught up.

By saying my old nag needs a head start you would be (correctly) saying that because of its genetic heritage it would not be able to compete in either speed or race endurance with the thoroughbred.

We have had racial equality for at least 30 years now - the black child born today has the same access to schooling etc etc as the white child.

Are you saying that after 30 years blacks have not yet caught up?

Are you saying that because of genetic heritage blacks are not able to compete without a head start?

You're the one who brought up genetics. And if we've had racial equality for 30 years now, that means there are millions of black people who didn't get an equal shot when they were schoolchildren, doesn't it?

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:You just don't get it Andy.   Every time that world is used from the mouth of a white person, those are the pictures black people see.   The word has the power of the actions it enabled.   To take the sting out of this, some young black people have taken the word back, and use it between each other to take away the pictures and the actions associated with it.  The word is the hangings, the word is the burning, the word is the genitals cut off and stuffed in mouths, the word is the women raped and demeaned.   That is why the word simply cannot be used by white people.   It's not just a word, its all that pain.

Yes Sassy we get that - but what you dont seem to get is that if a group is allowed to do something on the basis of their colour and that group are allowed to stop others doing it on the basis of their colour then pretty soon we end up right back where we started with racial segregation again.

You are confusing the issue...nobody is "allowed" to do anything, sphinx. It happens. And when it happens, it's simply not the insult that it would be were it to come from the mouth of a white person.

Sassy wrote:But the fault it didn't lies with you and Sphinx for not having enough empathy to realise the connection to the word.

Aren't we all missing the point here? No-one's denying the word shouldn't be used. The argument is that it seems to be acceptable for blacks to use it and no-one else. That's discrimination, pure and simple.

Tess. wrote:

Sassy wrote:But the fault it didn't lies with you and Sphinx for not having enough empathy to realise the connection to the word.

Aren't we all missing the point here?  No-one's denying the word shouldn't be used.  The argument is that it seems to be acceptable for blacks to use it and no-one else.  That's discrimination, pure and simple.

No, it's really not! Nobody is allowed to use the word "bitch" in reference to my sister without me at the very least thinking quite poorly of them. That is not discrimination, it's freedom of speech and thought.

Tess. wrote:

Sassy wrote:But the fault it didn't lies with you and Sphinx for not having enough empathy to realise the connection to the word.

Aren't we all missing the point here?  No-one's denying the word shouldn't be used.  The argument is that it seems to be acceptable for blacks to use it and no-one else.  That's discrimination, pure and simple.

Not discrimination at all, because there is no equivalency between the two situations.  With whites, the context is inevitably a racial slur.  With blacks it could be many things, even including a term of endearment.

All of language depends on the context.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

By saying my old nag needs a head start you would be (correctly) saying that because of its genetic heritage it would not be able to compete in either speed or race endurance with the thoroughbred.

Not at all.  Not everything is genetic; some things are environmental.  If you hadn't fed or sheltered the old nag, it could be suffering a lag.

sphinx wrote:We have had racial equality for at least 30 years now - the black child born today has the same access to schooling etc etc as the white child.

Are you saying that after 30 years blacks have not yet caught up?

We have not had 30 years of racial equality.  We haven't even had 3.  Two words: Trayvon Martin.

sphinx wrote:Are you saying that because of genetic heritage blacks are not able to compete without a head start?

No, I'm saying that owing to three hundred years (or more) of slavery, segregation, ostracism and cheap tricks like voter suppression, you have manipulated them into a disadvantaged position.  They are entitled to a head start.

Uh I am A) living in the UK B) have not manipulated anyone into any position.

Original Quill wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Yes Sassy we get that - but what you dont seem to get is that if a group is allowed to do something on the basis of their colour and that group are allowed to stop others doing it on the basis of their colour then pretty soon we end up right back where we started with racial segregation again.

You are confusing the issue...nobody is "allowed" to do anything, sphinx.  It happens.  And when it happens, it's simply not the insult that it would be were it to come from the mouth of a white person.

The attacks on madonna show that it is going from just happening to being something allowed. It has already started on the very path it is supposed to remind us to reject.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Aren't we all missing the point here?  No-one's denying the word shouldn't be used.  The argument is that it seems to be acceptable for blacks to use it and no-one else.  That's discrimination, pure and simple.

No, it's really not! Nobody is allowed to use the word "bitch" in reference to my sister without me at the very least thinking quite poorly of them. That is not discrimination, it's freedom of speech and thought.

But black people can say nigger to other black people while white people cannot say nigger to other white people.

That is discrimination.

Original Quill wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Aren't we all missing the point here?  No-one's denying the word shouldn't be used.  The argument is that it seems to be acceptable for blacks to use it and no-one else.  That's discrimination, pure and simple.

Not discrimination at all, because there is no equivalency between the two situations.  With whites, the context is inevitably a racial slur.  With blacks it could be many things, even including a term of endearment.

All of language depends on the context.

So Madonna was racially slurring her white son?

What about if his black brother had said it? What if the white son said it to the black son? What if madonna said it to her black son?

Context cannot be inevitably decided by skin colour.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tess. wrote:

Aren't we all missing the point here?  No-one's denying the word shouldn't be used.  The argument is that it seems to be acceptable for blacks to use it and no-one else.  That's discrimination, pure and simple.

No, it's really not! Nobody is allowed to use the word "bitch" in reference to my sister without me at the very least thinking quite poorly of them. That is not discrimination, it's freedom of speech and thought.

But black people can say nigger to other black people while white people cannot say nigger to other white people.

That is discrimination.

Nobody is talking about a law here, just how society reacts. If you're white and use that word, you're not going to prison, you're just going to be criticized.