Explain: "to compliment Lukaku he used a metaphor that turned out to be racist"
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
where the ***** all my bananas?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,329
- Location
- Rollergirl
Shame on those trying to turn this man into the next Anders Behring.
If somone had said this about a powerful Welsh player but said "you've got to throw a sheep at him" I wonder if the same segment of society would be showing faux outrage or laughing along
but society has deemed it acceptable to laugh at or poke fun at someones nationality, especially using stereotypes, so such statements are fine. personally i don't find either the banana one funny nor would i find the sheep one funny purely based on the fact they're not. lazy attempts at humour are just that, lazy. now if someone wants to put in some effort, then i'll laugh in equal measure at a racist joke or a jab at someones nationality based off of a stereotype. but getting a good joke of either variety is getting harder these days.
I suppose the difference is that it's obviously comedic saying that the Welsh are a nation of sheep shaggers. It's not in any way insinuating that they're subhuman, just that they have alternative proclivities. Similar to saying the Scots are all tight or the Irish drunkards. They're stereotypes that everyone knows to be rubbish.
Unlike referring to black people as monkeys. That's saying they're less than human, animals.
Liking bananas = worse than ******* animals.
Got it!
Wow that's pretty racist, lucky your not famous your that phrasing could have just cost you your job.
what, so you can't like both bananas and a bit of bestiality at the same time. that's very narrow minded of you, almost smells like hate speech!Liking bananas = worse than ******* animals.
Got it!
i'm quite partial to a banana after banging the neighbours dog.
Liking bananas = worse than ******* animals.
Got it!
Do you understand the word "implication"?
The former is understood by the West as inherently racist used in the manner it was in the context of the last 3-5 centuries, the latter is an explicit insult that no one actually believes against a nationality.
The thing about this is that while ever there's so much public coverage about it being highly offensive to black people as a race specifically then the insult of associating black people with primates through bananas is continuing to be perpetuated generation upon generation through the massive media coverage. I mean, if you know Superman is hurt by Kryptonite then why keep announcing it publically so that his enemies can know and keep being reminded? I think it would be better to deal with such matters in private rather than letting the media get their fangs into it so they can profit out of covering it and then hopefully the stereotype will steadily die.
I don't really know if what this guy said is some weird Italian phrase or not but I'm struggling to see how it can have any other meaning aside from the primate stereotype.
I don't really know if what this guy said is some weird Italian phrase or not but I'm struggling to see how it can have any other meaning aside from the primate stereotype.
Last edited:
I'm "in the mindset" that you are a liar. Because you're lying and you admitted doing so. You made words up, falsely claimed someone else said them and openly admitted that you did so to "prove" a point.
You're too dishonest to bother wasting any more time with.
No I did not and i never admitted I was lying either so stop lying yourself. I said "basically like saying..." and then something similar to what he said. To try and show how it can be seen to be bad. That is giving a suggestion of what he said. No where did I claim or even made out he actually said those words so stop lying yourself and get over whatever chip you have on your shoulder and the unnecessary grief you are giving me.
Not my problem you can;t understand debate and the English language and comprehension. Suggest you take a chill pill.
You going to debate the point or just keep calling me a liar? Perhaps re-read it in the light of the next day when you arent drunk or on drugs or something.
Anybody would think this was personal for you.
You wrote something completely different to what he said, claimed he said it and admitted that you changed the words to "prove" a point. What do you call it when a person deliberately make false statements about what another person has said? I call it lying.
The relevant posts still exist, unless you go back and edit them. People can check back if they want.
You do understand what you did - you said so, right here. Adding "basically like" to making something up and claiming someone else said it doesn't really make it anything other than making something up and claiming someone else said it. It's just a thin facade of evasion. As you said, you changed the words. What he said was not "basically like" or even slightly like what you claimed he said.
My objection isn't based on not understanding what you did. It's based on disagreeing with what you did.
If I wrote "what you said is basically like worshipping Satan", would that be reasonable? Would it make you a devil-worshipper? If you objected, could it only be because you can't understand that sentence?
So why can't you address what he actually said?
I am addressing what he said by saying that what is said was basically like saying he is a black man.
That is my point about the banana comment.
Let me make this simple for you I as am failing to see the point you are trying to make and why you are even trying to make it.
Imagine this scenario.
Person says “he is round and citrus like”
Me “he is basically saying he is a an orange “
You “OMG why are you lying? He never said the word orange”
Me “I am not, I am saying I think he basically thinks the guy is a orange, that is my interpretation of what he said”
You “you are still lying, I am not discussing it until you stop lying, he never used the word orange so why do you keep saying it?”
Me “I know he never said he was an orange, I am saying he basically said he was an orange. Want to debate it?”
You “so you finally admit you were lying then? I don’t debate with liars”
Me “...”
That is what it’s has been like discussing this with you for the last two days. You seem to have an incredible fixation over this point and this point alone.
So you can’t call me a liar. Fine if you want to debate my interpretation of what he said. I believe that what he said about bananas was the same as finishing off his speech with an old racial slur against black people. I am not and never have claimed he said the actually words “he is a black man”. Imo he said a worst thing.
Now feel fine to debate that but just making post after post saying “you’re lying, you’re lying” is not debate. You can totally disagree with my interpretation of what he said. Clearly I am not the only one think the same interpretation as lots of people complained about him and his bosses sacked him so clearly they thought the same or similar.
So I am genuinely interested in what you think he meant about the phrase rather than you just keep saying I am lying.
As for the devil worshipping. If I said I draw pentagrams on the floor and blood sacrificed the odd goat I think you would be perfectly justified in saying that I had basically said I was a devil worshipper.
I just can’t see what the problem would be in that statement in that context. it’s not like when he made the sentence about bananas I have gone said something totally unrelated like “he has basically said the earth is flat”
Under those circumstances you might have a point that I had gone off tangent. It still wouldn’t be lying, it would just be madness
That is my point about the banana comment.
Let me make this simple for you I as am failing to see the point you are trying to make and why you are even trying to make it.
Imagine this scenario.
Person says “he is round and citrus like”
Me “he is basically saying he is a an orange “
You “OMG why are you lying? He never said the word orange”
Me “I am not, I am saying I think he basically thinks the guy is a orange, that is my interpretation of what he said”
You “you are still lying, I am not discussing it until you stop lying, he never used the word orange so why do you keep saying it?”
Me “I know he never said he was an orange, I am saying he basically said he was an orange. Want to debate it?”
You “so you finally admit you were lying then? I don’t debate with liars”
Me “...”
That is what it’s has been like discussing this with you for the last two days. You seem to have an incredible fixation over this point and this point alone.
So you can’t call me a liar. Fine if you want to debate my interpretation of what he said. I believe that what he said about bananas was the same as finishing off his speech with an old racial slur against black people. I am not and never have claimed he said the actually words “he is a black man”. Imo he said a worst thing.
Now feel fine to debate that but just making post after post saying “you’re lying, you’re lying” is not debate. You can totally disagree with my interpretation of what he said. Clearly I am not the only one think the same interpretation as lots of people complained about him and his bosses sacked him so clearly they thought the same or similar.
So I am genuinely interested in what you think he meant about the phrase rather than you just keep saying I am lying.
As for the devil worshipping. If I said I draw pentagrams on the floor and blood sacrificed the odd goat I think you would be perfectly justified in saying that I had basically said I was a devil worshipper.
I just can’t see what the problem would be in that statement in that context. it’s not like when he made the sentence about bananas I have gone said something totally unrelated like “he has basically said the earth is flat”
Under those circumstances you might have a point that I had gone off tangent. It still wouldn’t be lying, it would just be madness
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 22,329
- Location
- Rollergirl
Wouldn't it be better to just merge with this thread?