TorquayFans.com | Torquay United Fans Forum

ferrarilover wrote:And in the above post lies the crux of my argument. It seems there no longer remains any circumstance where one may refer to the colour of a man's skin without having someone take offence, often for no good reason.
I am now under the impression that c**n, n****r, w*g, negro, coloured and black are all offensive terms to at least one poster on this site.

I note also with interest, that, with the possible (steve_t used the words “not caucasian”
, giving no indication as to what specific colour he may be) exception of one poster, every respondent to this thread has taken vicarious, rather than direct, offence to the words used. I'll leave the jury to decide on the relevance of that fact.

Sorry, I'm mixed race, my Mum's white and my father's black. All great fun growing up down west in the eighties i'm sure you'll agree!

Just out of interest, which of your terms listed, our previously used (I'm assuming to test waters) would you consider offensive?

I know the question wasn't at me, Steve, but I'd be a bit offended by the first four of that list. Coloured & black I personally don't get that affected by, but theres still no need for it!

I dislike racism, theres no need for it these days.

No Nick, nor do I like racism, but what I like even less is when people view the mere mention of a guy's colour as racism.
Shall we be absolutely clear on a key point: describing a guy by the colour of his skin is not racist. Beating a guy into a coma because of his colour, refusing him a job because of his colour, treating him less favourably because of his colour, these things are racist.

I described the guy by his colour, how often do we take that much note of shirt numbers, I know I don't. Ask me to recall the performance of the Hereford number 9 and I wouldn't have a clue. Ask me to recall the performance of the massive, black number 9 and I stand a fighting chance.

Imagine I had described him as the tall fella, or the barrel chested guy, or the bloke with the black hair, would any of these descriptors be any the less accurate or relevant? Would any of you have batted an eyelid? It is clear that you would not, and that any man who did would be behaving wholly unreasonably. It was the mere mention of the guy's colour that caused such a spout of over-reactionary sentiment that the point of the thread was lost forever.

It's odd, I never really knew life before the PC, health and safety, global warming brigade rocked up, yet I yearn with all my being for a time when people were free and able to make their own decisions and apply some discretion to situations. Honestly, of all those old enough to remember, say, the 70s, which of you would have reacted in this way to the word "negro" back then?

Had I said 'That Manset looks alright, but I don't want him at my club because he is a negro' I would absolutely expect a negative reaction, but for the simple mention of his colour, this has gone far too far.

Steve, the ones I consider unacceptable have been written with the asterisks in place of the middle letters. Of my previous uses, I consider them all to be appropriate, hence I used them.
Jonnyfive has, of course, misquoted my 'black bastard' comment, for ease of description and to save going over old ground, imagine a comma between the two words and you're about there. 'Heavily tanned' was humour in my usual style and I feel there is sufficient space taken up on Louis' spangly new server on the topic of 'negro' for my feelings on it's use in a descriptive manner for you to make your own judgement. As for the 'doing it for the attention' suggestion, have a read of my other 1,000,000 posts, you'll find that, with the odd exception, I post only jokes anyway. I don't feel the need to 'test the waters' I know full well what is acceptable and what is not and on occasions when I choose to overstep the mark, it is always done in a jovial manner and, thus far, I have not met anyone on here who has taken genuine offence to a personal 'attack' I have made.

Matt.

ferrarilover wrote:No Nick, nor do I like racism, but what I like even less is when people view the mere mention of a guy's colour as racism.
Shall we be absolutely clear on a key point: describing a guy by the colour of his skin is not racist. Beating a guy into a coma because of his colour, refusing him a job because of his colour, treating him less favourably because of his colour, these things are racist.

I described the guy by his colour, how often do we take that much note of shirt numbers, I know I don't. Ask me to recall the performance of the Hereford number 9 and I wouldn't have a clue. Ask me to recall the performance of the massive, black number 9 and I stand a fighting chance.

Imagine I had described him as the tall fella, or the barrel chested guy, or the bloke with the black hair, would any of these descriptors be any the less accurate or relevant? Would any of you have batted an eyelid? It is clear that you would not, and that any man who did would be behaving wholly unreasonably. It was the mere mention of the guy's colour that caused such a spout of over-reactionary sentiment that the point of the thread was lost forever.

It's odd, I never really knew life before the PC, health and safety, global warming brigade rocked up, yet I yearn with all my being for a time when people were free and able to make their own decisions and apply some discretion to situations. Honestly, of all those old enough to remember, say, the 70s, which of you would have reacted in this way to the word "negro" back then?

Had I said 'That Manset looks alright, but I don't want him at my club because he is a negro' I would absolutely expect a negative reaction, but for the simple mention of his colour, this has gone far too far.

Steve, the ones I consider unacceptable have been written with the asterisks in place of the middle letters. Of my previous uses, I consider them all to be appropriate, hence I used them.
Jonnyfive has, of course, misquoted my 'black bastard' comment, for ease of description and to save going over old ground, imagine a comma between the two words and you're about there. 'Heavily tanned' was humour in my usual style and I feel there is sufficient space taken up on Louis' spangly new server on the topic of 'negro' for my feelings on it's use in a descriptive manner for you to make your own judgement. As for the 'doing it for the attention' suggestion, have a read of my other 1,000,000 posts, you'll find that, with the odd exception, I post only jokes anyway. I don't feel the need to 'test the waters' I know full well what is acceptable and what is not and on occasions when I choose to overstep the mark, it is always done in a jovial manner and, thus far, I have not met anyone on here who has taken genuine offence to a personal 'attack' I have made.

Matt.

Interesting stuff, would you have used these terms in face to face conversation or do you reserve them to spice up an internet posting?

Will, have, shall again.

Matt.

Being tracked by Everton, according to the Hereford forum.

Matt.