j'nuh
First XV
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 4,209
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
The issue with epithets directed towards minorities is that it creates a sense of otherness in the minority; a sense of not belonging.
It changes dependent on place and context in my opinion. I would be bothered by an insult directed at my whiteness more so if I lived in African and Asian countries, than I would in European countries. It creates a sense of unease that I am being singled out for my differences. It's something minorities have to be extremely careful of, because throughout history minorities have faced persecution because of their minority status in a way that e.g. white people in predominantly white countries, or men in countries in which power is held predominantly by men, have not.
Besides, yes, I do have a problem with people calling rugby players (or anyone) these terms. Not for discriminatory reasons, but because people deserve a base level of respect.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The term threat has multiple definitions aside from an intent to apply violence etc.
I meant: threat - the possibility that something bad or harmful could happen
And by sexualised I meant containing sexual content. Reading it, I can appreciate how it can be taken for something a lot worse. The spirit I intended it in is much milder. And in my defence, I had just woken up and was in a rush for work.
So I apologise for sloppiness and ambiguity. But the message remains: I don't think that the language is appropriate for a family-friendly forum (especially given that, not too long ago, we were told to reduce on the swearing).
How so? You suggested that it would take, in a democracy, 50%+ of the population to be offended by something in order for the offence to be heard.
By definition, minority groups cannot possibly form more than 50% of the population in a way that majority groups can. Under democracy, white people can band together to stop epithets directed towards white people in a way that black people cannot (assuming a white-majority country).
So my point stands.
I don't disagree with you whatsoever here. Whilst I believe some people are well-meaning in their intent to defend others, often it can become patronising and self-fulfilling if someone - not of the minority status - practically makes the dialogue about themselves. It's cringy when people campaign on behalf of a group who has no interest in the campaign. Minority groups have called this out before.
I think that a movement dedicated to a particular group has form the dialogue. Men should not become feminists, for instance, lest they make the movement about themselves. It's generally well-meaning, but often misplaced, distracting and unwelcome. But that doesn't mean that men cannot interact with feminism, be allies of feminism, take interest in the discourse presented by feminism, reflect on and change themselves and their shortcomings when contrasted to feminism. It doesn't mean men cannot call out people when they are being sexist towards women.
Which leads me onto...
I think it takes a lack of imagination not to understand why anyone would want to complain on others behalf. It's innately human to have some degree of empathy for other people. I want BLM to succeed because I want black people to succeed. I want feminism to succeed because I want women to succeed. People should take an interest in the welfare of others. People should get offended on the behalf of others, as long as those people welcome the offence.
