...AND YOU ACCIDENTALLY TRIPPED SOMEBODY UP, perhaps for ignorantly not paying attention to your surroundings, you would apologise for the negative consequences of your actions to those who are affected.
Your ignorance caused others to have a grievance with you, even though you never meant for your actions to have the effect they did. You apologise for the effect of your actions, because it's the right thing to do, as it wasn't intentional, but when the person accuses you of deliberately tripping them up, you do not apologise, because that was not your intent.
I believe this is roughly a similar analogy for suarez-gate. Unfortunately, in this analogy, it just happens that a dodgy policeman passes by at the moment of the trip, and chucks suarez in jail for 8 weeks.
Either way, it's over now, let's move on and get behind the team.
IF YOU WERE WALKING IN THE STREET..
posted on 5/1/12
mthierry - you have just referred to blacks! You have generalised for all black people! That is wrong surely?
Again it is context. If a rapper was on the streets "freestyling" then the N word may be considered OK... but if he was in a job interview it would be wholly inappropriate - wouldn't it?
The word is according to Sky offensive regardless of who says it - hence it being bleeped despite a black man saying it. According to you it should be OK for him to say it though?
This I think is the last remnant of genuine racism left in society... racism will be dead when you don't treat someone differently just because of their race... which is what you have suggested is OK as when black people say the word it isn't offensive.
posted on 5/1/12
I'm black - and not just black but full-blooded Nigerian - and my cousins and I and friends address ourselves by the N-word in fits of banter and jousting. In that context, there's certainly no harm caused.
It's different though when coming from other ethnicities and races because of it's historical connotations. So, NO, I don't believe it's universally offensive. Just depends on the context of usage and the user.
posted on 5/1/12
I think it’s wrong to say something is offensive because it comes from a white person because of its historical connotations. That is a massive generalization and hugely offensive!
My “clan” in Scottish history previously fought against the McLeod’s. That doesn’t mean now I would judge every McLeod a certain way, just as I wouldn’t want a Mcleod to judge me just because of my surname.
I personally was not involved in the slave trade, and I am not a racist… but I am white. If you are honestly saying something is more offensive because it comes from a white person – then I’m afraid to say you are continuing on racial prejudice. Judge me – not my race!
If two black people can have friendly banter and use the N word. Or Asians use the P work. Or White people use the H word… then why can’t two friends of different races use these words during friendly banter? Surely they can! There is no harm caused because in the context of it just being friendly banter the word itself is not offensive as you have already agreed!
posted on 5/1/12
Look, can you just accept that your player said something that is deemed unacceptable in this country, and got punished for it. All these 'oh it's ok in Uruguay' arguments are neither here nor there. It's not ok in England, and it happens to be in England where he gets paid in excess of 100k a week to do his job. He's learnt a valuable lesson, and he'll be a better person for it. So please stop blindly defending him purely because he plays for your team, and stop all the Fergie/conspiracy rubbish as well, and move on.
posted on 5/1/12
I think you missed the part where I referred to context of usage. If my white friend called me the N-word amidst friendly banter, I wouldn't be offended in the slightest. If some yob on the street did the same while trying to wind me up, it'd be a totally different scenario.
The latter case is more apt and relevant to the Suarez-Evra case where any language in the exchange would likely have been aimed to incite and inflame.
posted on 5/1/12
Firstly - he's not my player. I support neither team involved in the incident. I'm not blindly defending him because he plays for my team... and I've said nothing about Ferguson. Can you not understand that someone is arguing on principle over this, rather than blindly following their side?
I reject the fact it is deemed "unacceptable in this country" - since clearly we can see examples where the words are acceptable. If it is about context and offense caused then yes you could argue he is right to be banned, and I would urge the FA to make the ban equally as long as the one given to Evra for his inflammatory comments.
I would agree he earns a lot of money and is responsible for the image of the game. I think both he and Evra have tarnished the image of the game.
posted on 5/1/12
^^^^^
Referring to MrMortimer, of course.
posted on 5/1/12
MrMORTIMER.
You are beginning to sound more and more like your Protege, RUMPOLE Q.C.
posted on 6/1/12
I think all this debate shows just what an emotionally loaded subject this is, and even though the consensus is that everybody is against racism, there are still lots of arguments about all kinds of situations which means different things to different people.
It's like everybody agrees, but they can't agree on how they agree.
I myself can see the merits in both the 'reclamation' of words and also the argument that by cordoning off words for certain quarters perpetuating certain divides..
posted on 6/1/12
Mthierry – “It's different though when coming from other ethnicities and races because of it's historical connotations.”
That was your statement.
You have made a statement about you and your friends banter – saying the use of a word was OK then, but not OK when used by other races. Are we to infer from this that you refuse to be friends with people from other races?
Yes of course I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here… but taking a look at the statement you made, can you accept that it could be interpreted as racist? There is (intentional or not) an implication you refuse to be friends with people of other races, and you are treating someone differently because of their race – black people can say the N word, white people can’t because of historical connotations.
Now looking at that last paragraph could you be accused of making racist comments? Undoubtedly you could. You could have caused great offense to someone with your last statement… will you apologise?
I actually agree it is about context… and of course I’m sure you didn’t mean to be racist – and I clearly am not offended, but I think it is pushing the realms of belief to say Evra was by Suarez’s comments. Let’s put the conversation in context… it is two players trying to wind each other up on the football pitch. Evra has begun the abuse with comments about Suarez’s sister… Suarez replies. If you agree that it is context rather than the words themselves which cause offense then surely it is the level of offense which is the issue not the actual subject itself? Friendly banter on the issue of race is much less offensive than aggressively calling someone a s-x offender surely? If you agree to this then let’s put the Evra-Suarez comments back into context. Evra makes an offensive comment about Suarez’s sister, Suarez replies. If both comments are ranked 5/10 on the offensive scale why is only one of the players being punished?