suave harv wrote: A real racist will activley discrimate in real life surely? Just because someone says something someone percieves as being racist, does not by default make them a racist. I see no contridiction.
I do see your point, and I agree there's a distinction between those who are actively, consciously racist and those who are racist by unquestioned social norms (including language).
However, there is something of an overlap zone. To say something racist is surely to be racist, albeit at a far lower level than someone who shouts it in hatred.
suave harv wrote: I really shouldn't get involved in all this, because there's no way on here that I don't make myself look like a 'Daily Mail' reader when I sound off
whaoh there, I really wasn't having a go at you. In discussing political issues there are always going to be challenges to what we say. That's not a personal attack, it's a request to justify what's been said and, hopefully, for both of us to move towards greater clarity.
And even if the person you're discussing with is being a tosser, the point of doing it on a public board like this is that we lay ideas open so that a reasonable third party can see what's right.
On the 'Daily Mail' thing, I find it curious how most newspapers can be used like that. All of them are criticisms; 'Guardian reader', 'Sun reader', 'Telegraph reader', 'Daily Mail reader'.
|