The most surprising thing about all this is wetherspoons serves fruit!?
*Snip*
"Do you serve fruit?"
"Yes sir, we'll serve anyone."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc608/fc608ab6e6dc2469165c10f9a8cb020731d10c69" alt="Smile :) :)"
The most surprising thing about all this is wetherspoons serves fruit!?
*Snip*
Still haven't had a coherent response to my question.
Please say you are joking.
Thugs > black footballers look like monkeys > monkeys eat bananas > throw one at a black player > just a laugh, grow up and get over it.
For decades black players have just had to get on with it but why should they?
Now somebody has decided to do it on a bloke in a pub.
Don't be that guy, come on. You know damn well that "grow a thicker skin" doesn't apply here, there is a whole plethora of variables which haven't been taken in to consideration.
I've already tried that argument mate, doesn't work. Ignorance is as ignorance does.
You guys are giving too little credit to their intelligence, it isn't willful ignorance it is an excuse for superiority.
I'm pretty sure you could use this thread to quite accurately determine which users do not have friends outside of their own race.
Don't be that guy, come on. You know damn well that "grow a thicker skin" doesn't apply here, there is a whole plethora of variables which haven't been taken in to consideration.
Fundamentally though that's what it comes down to. Hurtful words.
Like I said at the start of the thread many other people have been bullied, shamed, abused because of their physical appearance. Traits they cannot choose and shouldn't change. Why should they not be afforded the same level of protection and ultimately why should hurt feelings be a crime?
Where there is no threat of violence or discrimination, implied or direct, it shouldn't be a criminal matter.
Because your desensitizing one of the most contentious and disgraceful issues in human history.
And how is that any different to insults based on any uncontrolled aspect of someone's appearance? Simply put, to the individual it isn't.
Someone will feel no different to being called a monkey because they're black to being called a tramp because they have ginger hair.
The outcome should be the same for both. That outcome should not be criminal.
We've been over this in this thread. No one has been enslaved or generations of their families persecuted because they were short or ginger.
We've been over this in this thread. No one has been enslaved or generations of their families persecuted because they were short or ginger.
"I have a black mate, I can't be racist"
"I have a black mate, I can't be racist"
Whilst we're on that topic again... could the abuse given to ginger people, from the playground to the workplace, become protected under some celtic race argument?
e: Wait no! Not the abuse protected, but the people. You know what I mean.
Please say you are joking.
Thugs > black footballers look like monkeys > monkeys eat bananas > throw one at a black player > just a laugh, grow up and get over it.
For decades black players have just had to get on with it but why should they?
Now somebody has decided to do it on a bloke in a pub.
What relevance does the past have to an individual? None whatsoever. This guy wasn't a slave, his parents weren't, his grandparents weren't. In fact it's highly unlikely he's descended from slaves at all.
Trying telling a kid who comes home crying from school every day because they're bullied about their hair, or glasses or whatever that, sorry, your feelings don't matter as much because someone 400 years ago wasn't oppressed because of it.
But we're all descendants from apes, no matter the creed or colour.
It has relevance because it led to sub-human treatment of endless Africans, and we’re still climbing back from that position.
We share a common ancestor...