right. and the anti-irish racism we have seen in the past 150 years? in the last 50? none of it racism against white people because the irish aren't considered white?
Bullshit. It's not a woolly definition. Your definition is the woolly one. It just doesn't pretend to encapsulate the entire complex situation within one word.
Responded to it? I blew it to fuck.
I don't think there's anything at all pointless or woolly about steering kids away from using racially based epithets on the basis that they are ... racist.
Happy to try.
I make no such pretence.
Fucking idiot.
right. and the anti-irish racism we have seen in the past 150 years? in the last 50? none of it racism against white people because the irish aren't considered white?
e2a: the very fact they weren't considered white at times in the past seems to me clear evidence of racism, even if it skipped right over your head
Hardly. You agreed violence set domestically isn’t always violence, it needs context. But use of words needs no such context. Hmm...
Except, if they’re not racist those kids will just ignore you, so it’s pretty worthless.
cfy
Not only that. I illustrated that that particular comparison of racism and domestic abuse, was fundamentally flawed.
Yeah, you're doing it wrong, Spy. What do you know about racism anyway?
No you didn’t. You changed the terms being used. You are very slapdash with your terminology.
irish people are white
Okay, I’ll just agree with any Tory on race, as king as they’re black. Cos, y’know, they’re black.Yeah, you're doing it wrong, Spy. What do you know about racism anyway?
Nope. You just didn't understand the absurdity of the connection you were trying to make.
but it does. and often enough it comes from other white people, just as there is a fair amount of racism between other people of similar hues - for example, between cambodians and vietnamese. when Magnus McGinty raised the issue of the irish, you didn't say what you now say, you said
and so i think that when you say
you're shifting the goalposts more than slightly. you're as honest, no doubt, as the day is long: but the evenings are drawing in.
Show, don't tell. All you did was go 'no, no, no, that's different!' without offering any, non-circular, justification.
Don't be dim. You were trying to advance that a woman who strikes back at an abusive husband wasn't guilty of domestic abuse, therefore a person who uses racial abuse towards someone who racially abused them first, wasn't guilty of racial abuse.
we're playing with our new (?) friendOk, I get it...no-one wants to come and discuss Brexit/ToryDeathSpiral today...you're all too busy in here.
Have you covered the antisemitic angle yet?
Oh dear, you really do have difficulty with analogies, don't you?Don't be dim. You were trying to advance that a woman who strikes back at an abusive husband wasn't guilty of domestic abuse, therefore a person who uses racial abuse towards someone who racially abused them first, wasn't guilty of racial abuse.
