• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Racial and Class Bias in the Justice System

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
South Carolina was among the states that don't have hate crime laws, the state where Dylan Roof killed the people at a black church and he's apprehended alive. Tamir Rice didn't kill anyone and he's dead. So why the double standard?
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Racism is a word that is way overused in most respects, we live in an age where people are so over-eager to use the word to bash anyone who has a slightly negative view on immigration. The problem is simply that the world "racism" is overused while we pretend that racism and hate crime against white people doesn't exist.... which is does, people just ignore it.

It exist just on such a minuscule level compared to other kinds that it shouldn't be the focus. No one is saying it doesn't exist, they just say it's clearly worse for other groups of people.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
Pikachu52 said:
Arguably for good reason. That particular term does not have a happy history. The term was invented to be used as a pejorative by a majority against a minority in order to dehumanise, exclude and belittle them. It's very hard to see how use of that term by a white person towards a black person isn't extremely racist given that history. It's an issue of context.
Language is very context-sensitive, yes, but the interpretation of said context hinges on pre-existing assumptions of relevance. Whether the race of the person saying it is relevant to the context depends on those assumptions. Someone might be just as offended regardless of race. Is he objectively wrong?

For the record, I dislike the word too. I just think that your analysis and the analysis in the article are too superficial.
 
Last edited:
Arguably for good reason.

Agreed, but I hope you weren't siding with the "throw them in jail bit" That would be odd. I also don't know what he's even taking about. Since when were people thrown in jail for saying the N word? I know of nowhere where that's actually happening...

Language is very context-sensitive, yes, but the interpretation of said context hinges on pre-existing assumptions of relevance. Whether the race of the person saying it is relevant to the context depends on those assumptions. Someone might be just as offended regardless of race. Is he objectively wrong?

For the record, I dislike the word too. I just think that your analysis and the analysis in the article are too superficial.

I think whether or not he's "objectively" wrong is missing the point. You're right about language being context sensitive, it's feasible that someone can say the N word and not harbor racist feelings. For example, if you're a white person who has close friends who are black, and they have given you permission to use the word as a term of endearment, affection, what have you, then it's not really a big deal. I see that kind of thing all the time and it's fine. There's always rare exceptions to the rule that you'll find, but that's the case with pretty much everything. Given the words heavily racist implications, if you use it outside of a close circle of friends that personally know you, you're being racist because 1) People have no way of assessing your true feelings about race if they haven't personally interacted with you, so given its connotations you're pretty much going to be offending someone 99% percent of the time irrespective of whether you truly harbor racist feelings or not.

Seriously, try getting a job in London, if you are white and there is a black or muslim there... you might as well not bother because they will get it.

This is pretty much the definition of racism/prejudice because the categories that you're using to describe the people you're competing with to get a job are arbitrary. Economic competition is just the way that capitalism works. If more people of any nationality or religion immigrate to your country for work, it's going to be more difficult for you in the short term to find jobs simply because there are more people to compete with. That fact doesn't have anything to do with their personal identities. In the long term immigration usually fuels economic growth. It's not as if though you only get low wage workers. Take a look at Germany and try to understand why they're opening their gates to so many Syrian refugees, there's more to it than just the goodness of their hearts. They're also getting their scientists, engineers, academics, etc.'
 
Last edited:

Pikachu52

Well-Known Member
Agreed, but I hope you weren't siding with the "throw them in jail bit" That would be odd. I also don't know what he's even taking about. Since when were people thrown in jail for saying the N word? I know of nowhere where that's actually happening...

Many countries including Australia and the UK have racial vilification laws that make it unlawful to do a public act that incites hatred, ridicule or contempt for a person or group of persons based on their race as well as other attributes. In Australia the relevant law is Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act:

It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Some States have similar laws, although the threshold his higher than 18C. Throw in jail may be a stretch as the relevant provision is a civil provision and does not impose criminal penalties. However there are criminal penalties attached to state vilification laws but the incitement has to be "serious." Depending on context using the N word as a racial slur would most likely breach the provision.
 

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
I think whether or not he's "objectively" wrong is missing the point. You're right about language being context sensitive, it's feasible that someone can say the N word and not harbor racist feelings. For example, if you're a white person who has close friends who are black, and they have given you permission to use the word as a term of endearment, affection, what have you, then it's not really a big deal. I see that kind of thing all the time and it's fine. There's always rare exceptions to the rule that you'll find, but that's the case with pretty much everything. Given the words heavily racist implications, if you use it outside of a close circle of friends that personally know you, you're being racist because 1) People have no way of assessing your true feelings about race if they haven't personally interacted with you, so given its connotations you're pretty much going to be offending someone 99% percent of the time irrespective of whether you truly harbor racist feelings or not.
Except that I wasn't arguing in favor of treating the word as a term of endearment or affection. I'm not the one who was entertaining that possibility, Pikachu52's article was (for black-on-black).

I was talking about white-on-black vs black-on-black. Let's say there's someone who is offended by the word just as much if a white or black person is using it on them. And let's say this is one of the cases where it would be bad for a white person at least. Would you walk up to them and say, "No, you're doing it wrong, you should be less offended now"?
 
Top