Labour frontbencher Diane Abbott "coloured".

[FoxEye]

Really, is this difficult? It's because "coloured" has racist history and connotation. It's the exact term that was used in the US before the civil rights act, Whites only / Coloureds Only. it's the exact term that was often used here in the 50's, 60's and 70's in less formal discrimination such as this...

It's plain racist. Anyone that doesn't realise it is either playing the fool or downright ignorant of the historical racism where that specific word has been used.

Rudd might as well have called her a ******.

That flier is obviously racist.

Calling someone the n-word is known to be a bit out of order as well.

The word "coloured" probably isn't going to be used in a racist context. Those who want to be racist will use a more offensive word. Those who use the word "coloured" are probably trying to play it safe.

But you can't play it safe these days when everything is offensive to the professional offence takers.

 

[FoxEye]

Bull****. No it wasn't the same as the US, but it has the same connotation.

Here's a question for you:

Assume that somebody writes a flier saying "No blacks; no Irish; no kids."

Does the word "blacks" then become a racial slur? Does the word "kids" become a derogatory term for children?

No. You have to separate the flier, which is the sum of all the words it contains, from the individual words themselves.

Otherwise maybe "weekly", "rooms", "share", etc... should all be racist words too.

 

[inogen]

That flier is obviously racist.

Calling someone the n-word is known to be a bit out of order as well.

The word "coloured" probably isn't going to be used in a racist context. Those who want to be racist will use a more offensive word. Those who use the word "coloured" are probably trying to play it safe.

But you can't play it safe these days when everything is offensive to the professional offence takers.

I'm not really sure how you can say that the flier is obviously racist but then say those who want to racist would use a different word.

 

[StriderX]

Here's a question for you:

Assume that somebody writes a flier saying "No blacks; no Irish; no kids."

Does the word "blacks" then become a racial slur? Does the word "kids" become a derogatory term for children?

No. You have to separate the flier, which is the sum of all the words it contains, from the individual words themselves.

Otherwise maybe "weekly", "rooms", "share", etc... should all be racist words too.

Yes it does, if you used those terms for years in a derogatory manner the word would sour.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm not really sure how you can say that the flier is obviously racist but then say those who want to racist would use a different word.

Context. Do you understand how a sequence of words can convey a racist message, but the individual words are not themselves to blame?

 

[Murphy]

Does the word "blacks" then become a racial slur? Does the word "kids" become a derogatory term for children?

No it doesn't, it is however discriminatory against "black" and "kids".

You seem to be conflating the meaning of words with the intention of the person using said words.
Link.

A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

My emphasis to highlight that it's the person who is racist not the words.

 

[inogen]

Here's a question for you:

Assume that somebody writes a flier saying "No blacks; no Irish; no kids."

Does the word "blacks" then become a racial slur? Does the word "kids" become a derogatory term for children?

No. You have to separate the flier, which is the sum of all the words it contains, from the individual words themselves.

Otherwise maybe "weekly", "rooms", "share", etc... should all be racist words too.

Yeah, you're right. "No blacks; no Irish; no kids." is racist. But the words aren't. That doesn't mean that racist words, casual or otherwise cease to be racist when used in a benign context.

 

[Dis86]

Context. Do you understand how a sequence of words can convey a racist message, but the individual words are not themselves to blame?

Precisely. I tried to explain that previously and it was like talking to a block of wood yet the gent with a black partner understood it perfectly.

 

[inogen]

Precisely. I tried to explain that previously and it was like talking to a block of wood yet the gent with a black partner understood it perfectly.

That's because you have the eloquence of rotting veg.

 

[FoxEye]

Yeah, you're right. "No blacks; no Irish; no kids." is racist. But the words aren't. That doesn't mean that racist words, casual or otherwise cease to be racist when used in a benign context.

Erm, that seems to be a contradiction.

But the words aren't [racist].

That doesn't mean that racist words, casual or otherwise cease to be racist when used in a benign context.

So the words aren't racist, but they are racist words?

 

[inogen]

Erm, that seems to be a contradiction.

No, no contradiction.

Racist intent with no inheirantly racist language is still racist.

Racist language with no intent is still racist.

They're racist for different reasons. One has racist intent, the other racist language.

So the words aren't racist, but they are racist words?

No.

 

[FoxEye]

So why is "coloured" racist because it was used in a racist flier, but "blacks" wouldn't be racist if it was used instead of "colour" in the same flier?

 

[inogen]

So why is "coloured" racist because it was used in a racist flier, but "blacks" wouldn't be racist if it was used instead of "colour" in the same flier?

"Coloured" is racist for both reasons. It's both racist language and in the flier, used in a racially discriminatory way.

Swap it out for "Black", it's not racist language, but the word is being used in a racially discriminatory way.

Is this conversation even real? This is like primary school comprehension.

 

[FoxEye]

"Coloured" is racist for both reasons. It's both racist language and in the flier, used in a racially discriminatory way.

Swap it out for "Black", it's not racist language, but the word is being used in a racially discriminatory way.

Is this conversation even real? This is like primary school comprehension.

Then you are inconsistent.

If "coloured" is racist because it appears in literature which is of a obviously racist intent, then "blacks" should also be racist - I know for a fact that many people use the word "blacks" to express racist sentiments. "Do you have black tenants?" "I personally don't like them and I won't let my property to blacks." Bingo! "Blacks" should be racist.

Do you think that back in the day, "coloured" was a term only used by racists? Do you think non-racists might have also used the word?

 

[DB_SamX]

I'm brown; couldn't get care less what people called to describe me - brown/coloured. It's a description at the end of the day and factual in my opinion.

 

[cheesyboy]

I LIKE TO PRETEND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THINGS TOO

 

[inogen]

Then you are inconsistent.

If "coloured" is racist because it appears in literature which is of a obviously racist intent, then "blacks" should also be racist - I know for a fact that many people use the word "blacks" to express racist sentiments. "Do you have black tenants?" "I personally don't like them and I won't let my property to blacks." Bingo! "Blacks" should be racist.

Do you think that back in the day, "coloured" was a term only used by racists? Do you think non-racists might have also used the word?

Tell that to the OED.

 

[Diddums]

I love watching the racisms on here, some people are hilarious

 

[Destination]

I don't see what the problem is. Personally I would have just said black, presumably someone would complain about that too for god knows what reason.

I think most of the outrage was for exactly this reason.
Many people simply don't seem to understand that coloured is a term that causes offense and has been for years.
How can so many of you not know this?
It would suggest, as has been reported, that there is inherent racism, at a subconscious level.

 

[Roar87]

I think most of the outrage was for exactly this reason.
Many people simply don't seem to understand that coloured is a term that causes offense and has been for years.
How can so many of you not know this?
It would suggest, as has been reported, that there is inherent racism, at a subconscious level.

Most people just don't give a ****, they aren't interested. They don't act racist and don't care to keep up with the latest politically correct term.

I personally know to use the word Black and not Coloured, but I don't even know where I found that out, and I wouldn't bat an eye lid at someone for using the word Coloured as I've never seen it used in a derogatory fashion.