Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperSix
Let's ignore the fact that Cloud's is right and he UK had already found in cases against the term you so dearly hold as innocent. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-golliwog.html
And let's also assume your English is strong enough that my point won't go over your head again. We also we ignore your nonsense extrapolation that also pulls in Religion instead of hate speech. When you argue that every word has its positive and negative do you really feel it's ok to use a term that others find offensive just because you don't? For the record in America in the 1800's southern plantation workers didn't see anything wrong with saying the word ****** despite its clear derogatory nature. Those plantation owners didn't see anything wrong with the world in their culture.
If this went over your head ask booji to explain. |
You come and give an example of it being used against someone else. In this case it was not used against anyone. In Belgium we have an holliday for kids called Sinterklaas. It is about a white saint with black helpers, they are called "zwarte piet". At this moment there are campaigns to have those removed from an holliday that has been there for a long time and those "zwarte piet(en)" never meant to be racist. Since racism has to do with more than using a word, it needs intend for it to be racist. For example "whats up nigga" being said between black people. Now lets say they win and the "zwarte piet" gets banned like the golliwog did. Does that make the word racist? In my opinion it does not.
PS: Your example is on a word thats commonly seen as racist when used. Golliwog is not seen as commonly racist. It only is seen in the UK as racist cause the black people won the vote to get it banned. (I all honesty I did not know wog was a racist word.)