• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

That's assuming you have morals which is something we already all know a lot of these players don't! How does that apply then to the partners of serial wags then, those who've had affairs/flings with several players?!

the bints are just slags i guess
 
If i shouted out .. "do one blackie" at a football match (ie not swearing) i'd possibly be arrested and charged for racism, and banned from football

if a black fella shouted "do one whitey" would he be treated the same ??

You would think so as I have recently been charged for a public order offence for singing Lip Up Fatty as it caused offence to those in the queue for housing benefit.
 
all jokes aside you did have a valid point same as calling someone a pikey or ginger etc you would be laughed out of court

depends. if you called them a ginger **** it would be significantly different.

ps gingers aren't stopped and searched to the same degree to my knowledge, nor were gingers ever slaves.
 
That's assuming you have morals which is something we already all know a lot of these players don't! How does that apply then to the partners of serial wags then, those who've had affairs/flings with several players?!

Morality has no place in the courtroom - the law is there in black and white (unfortunate words but you know what I mean). Terry racially abused Ferdinand - he could have engaged his brain beforehand.
 
If i shouted out .. "do one blackie" at a football match (ie not swearing) i'd possibly be arrested and charged for racism, and banned from football

if a black fella shouted "do one whitey" would he be treated the same ??


No of course not. Then again we don't have hundreds of years of bigotry,oppression and slavery to give us any idea of what it is like to be judged on our colour so its not offensive to us (unless you are in TOWIE where being white and not orange seems to be something to be ashamed of).

Doesnt make it right of course. I was in a club years ago full of black people and we were the only 4 white guys in there and we took some abuse for being white before we left. I wasnt offended at all. Nervous yes, offended no.

I also dont think its a defence to say "he was mean to me". If Ferdinand was being a **** call him a **** without referring to his colour.
 
If i shouted out .. "do one blackie" at a football match (ie not swearing) i'd possibly be arrested and charged for racism, and banned from football

if a black fella shouted "do one whitey" would he be treated the same ??

The thing is, they aren't really the same are they?

Only one of them is identifying a person as a historically discriminated against group. Why identify someone in that group, other as a way of degrading and belittling them (hardly in itself a justification) unless it's a way of perpetuating that discrimination?

It's completely unnecessary.
 
Hilarious over-reactions, but at the same time, quite predictable. What on earth were they thinking pricing them differently!?

I think it is just an oversight, as they say, for the same reason you sometimes get a deal on a larger size quantity that makes it cheaper than the smaller good that is right next to it.

You could also argue that no-one moaned when the White Iphone was more expensive than the Black Iphone when it had just come out, and that a toy is also an inanimate object, so why should it matter!
 
The thing is, they aren't really the same are they?

Only one of them is identifying a person as a historically discriminated against group. Why identify someone in that group, other as a way of degrading and belittling them (hardly in itself a justification) unless it's a way of perpetuating that discrimination?

It's completely unnecessary.

I just don't get that, just because you call someone "black *******" or "black ****", why does that have to refer back to something that happened centuries ago? Do Australians take offence when they're called "convicts" as has been openly done in thread titles on the Zone? Would calling a Chinese man a "yellow ****" be more or less offensive than calling them a "slitty eyed" something or another? Besides which, not all blacks have heritage back to Africa so would someone of Caribbean descent take the same kind of offence?

Obviously if you called someone you "slave descendant ****** (that's the n word btw)" then that would be racially offensive (I also don't get how it's ok for blacks to call each other that word, but not whites, but that's a whole other discussion!), but calling someone a black whatever is just an observation of the colour of their skin rather than anything else. People are over analysing and over sensitive about history that is beyond our power to change, and we should stop being made to feel guilty about it.
 
I think it is just an oversight, as they say, for the same reason you sometimes get a deal on a larger size quantity that makes it cheaper than the smaller good that is right next to it.

You could also argue that no-one moaned when the White Iphone was more expensive than the Black Iphone when it had just come out, and that a toy is also an inanimate object, so why should it matter!

It probably was an oversight and it shouldn't matter but it's fairly obvious that to some people it would. The general public has a need to vent its outraged dignity somewhere.

But seriously, the pricing of black and white fake babies is slightly more emotive that black and white iphones!?

:stunned:
 
but calling someone a black whatever is just an observation of the colour of their skin rather than anything else. People are over analysing and over sensitive about history that is beyond our power to change, and we should stop being made to feel guilty about it.

Spot on honky
 
I just don't get that, just because you call someone "black *******" or "black ****", why does that have to refer back to something that happened centuries ago?

Yes, because you have to go back centuries to find footballers being pelted with bananas, when some clubs wouldn't employ black players. Oh no, that certainly never happened in my life time.


Do Australians take offence when they're called "convicts" as has been openly done in thread titles on the Zone? Would calling a Chinese man a "yellow ****" be more or less offensive than calling them a "slitty eyed" something or another? Besides which, not all blacks have heritage back to Africa so would someone of Caribbean descent take the same kind of offence?

In what way are Australians a historically discriminated group?

No blacks, no Australians and no dogs?

Obviously if you called someone you "slave descendant ****** (that's the n word btw)" then that would be racially offensive (I also don't get how it's ok for blacks to call each other that word, but not whites, but that's a whole other discussion!), but calling someone a black whatever is just an observation of the colour of their skin rather than anything else.

You can call someone one black. You can't call them a black *******. How is that difficult to understand?

People are over analysing and over sensitive about history that is beyond our power to change, and we should stop being made to feel guilty about it.

Or we could just stop calling people black *******s?
 
I just don't get that, just because you call someone "black *******" or "black ****", why does that have to refer back to something that happened centuries ago? Do Australians take offence when they're called "convicts" as has been openly done in thread titles on the Zone? Would calling a Chinese man a "yellow ****" be more or less offensive than calling them a "slitty eyed" something or another? Besides which, not all blacks have heritage back to Africa so would someone of Caribbean descent take the same kind of offence?

Obviously if you called someone you "slave descendant ****** (that's the n word btw)" then that would be racially offensive (I also don't get how it's ok for blacks to call each other that word, but not whites, but that's a whole other discussion!), but calling someone a black whatever is just an observation of the colour of their skin rather than anything else. People are over analysing and over sensitive about history that is beyond our power to change, and we should stop being made to feel guilty about it.

I'm staggered that people still think this.

For years, people were denigrated (very interesting word that, no) because of the colour of their skin. If you're throwing the word 'black' into an insult, then you're considering the colour of their skin to be part of the insult? If not, why use it as part of the insult? Why is it mentioned at all? It's not a difficult concept.

You're surely not arguing that the colour of someone's skin is an acceptable insult?
 
Back
Top