[QUOTE=Marley23]
And that’s racist. I am not sure what point you are trying to make, Shodan.
[/QUOTE]
That it isn’t any worse, or very much different, from disparaging remarks made about other groups.
Regards,
Shodan
No, they fucking well don’t.
Why is that?
It’s an argument that doesn’t lend itself so well to proof or disproof, but it seems factual to me.
What he is saying is that they are maintaining elements of a more primitive culture. This is a factual statement, whether true or not. It’s not about like or dislike.
I agree with the OP of this thread. You’re outlawing offensive statements, and you’ve not shown any clear line between the statement you sanctioned and the ones you don’t.
I can’t speak to the demographics of South Africa, but I can say around 10 million people live in the Johannesburg metro are (per Wikipedia) and about 2 million more live in the three capital cities (note Delon’s comment about the government). That doesn’t sound like one leg in the bush to me.
Points for creativity.
Yes they do. Just as some people still do in America. It’s not a fucking insult to say so.
I guess that’s easier than actually having to confront the issue. Nice work.
In the context of his post, that’s clearly what he was saying.
Posting ignorant stereotypes is a warnable offence now? That’ll cut the number of legitimate posts in political threads to approximately zero then.
My mistake. I thought you were. Apologies, though hopefully you weren’t offended.
I have to say my initial reaction was that I too don’t see the inherent racism. To me it sounded like “He’s still got one foot on the farm” meaning a simpler way of life. I wouldn’t expect a farmer to understand corporate finance, neighborhood gentrification, or the finer points of hailing a cab because it’s simply not part of his life. Of course the flip side is that I have no idea how to farm and if plopped into that life I’d be a complete failure.
Perhaps there’s some connotation to “bush” that I’m not clear on that makes it racist.
It can be, yes. For example if other posters are trying to have a discussion of the state of affairs in a large country and someone chimes in to suggest that most of the inhabitants and the government are backward and implying they’re savages, that seems like being a jerk to me.
Interesting thing is that absent the loaded word “savages” - which is your own insertion - you’re saying essentially the same interpretation that I gave earlier (and - as I understand it - is essentially the same thing zoid understood), which you gave “points for creativity”.
It’s not clear to me where the jerk part comes in. Whether most of the inhabitants of a country are backward is a factual matter, and does not (necessarily) involve “dislike” at all, and certainly is not a direct expression of dislike - which is what you gave as your rationale in your initial response. And it certainly relates to the topic being discussed. I can’t imagine that “a bunch of posters were having a discussion based on a shared premise and someone else came along and challenged that premise” is a rules violation.
Best as I can tell, you reacted viscerally to a term which you found offensive, and are now struggling to justify it.
That’s not a factual matter, it’s an opinion. And yes, it’s pretty clearly an expression of dislike. Read Delon’s post and tell me what you think he feels about the government of South Africa and its supporters. You can figure out his opinion even without the bit about “one leg in the bush,” which is near the end of the post.
Do you realize that these are not mutually inconsistent? A person can have an opinion about a factual matter. What do you think is is required for something to be a factual matter?
He thinks the government is doing a lousy job. He thinks the reason it’s doing a lousy job is because the government and black SA society continue to maintain elements of a more primitive past.
These are all statements of fact, and fundamentally no different - in terms of the ostensible guidelines for racist speech - from the assertion that Blacks are genetically inferior in some manner. (Personally I would think it’s actually less offensive, FWIW, but that’s neither here nor there, if offensiveness alone is not a violation of the rules.)
I think you may be bringing your own cultural baggage. You seem to be putting a very harsh spin on the actual words, changing “one leg in the bush” to “uncivilized jungle animals”, none of which Delon said. I accept I could be wrong, I don’t know for sure what Delon meant.
In Australia that expression would mean that a particular group had unduly hick attitudes, and would not have racist overtones. It would mean “the government are a bunch of hicks”.
The comment in context seems more culturalist than racist. I find it very easy to believe that SA’s oppressed black majority would (having been locked out of good education and wealth for decades) have a culture that was notably sub-optimal for running a liberal democracy.
A person can have an opinion about a factual matter, yes. But “those people are backward” is not a factual matter. It’s an opinion. The factual matter would be some underlying issue, not, say, a comment about the government and black people in South Africa having a primitive attitude.
The statement is not itself a factual matter, it’s about a factual matter.
If the concept of being “backward” exists, then the statement is about a factual matter. They either are or are not backward, and if they are backward then it’s a fact that they are backward and if they’re not backward then it’s a fact that they’re not backward.
This poster is saying that they are backward, which is either a true assertion about a factual matter or a false assertion about a factual matter, but an assertion about a factual matter regardless.
[What occurs to me on thinking about it is that in America it’s common for racists to use jungle references in referring to black people, with the implication that they are ape-like, and maybe that’s what set you off. But that does not appear to be what this poster meant, in the context of his post.]
Well, to be honest, you do list yourself as a “30 + Coloured South African” in your profile, and that, in conjunction with your photo in the portrait gallery, certainly creates the impression you prefer to think of yourself as black. That was certainly the impression I got when I first saw them.
South Africans look at race differently than we in the west do. IIRC, under Apartheid people were classified as white, black, coloured, or Asian.
Had I seen the picture I’d have assumed he thought of himself as “coloured”.
Ah, ignorance fought. Thanks.
The post quoted in the OP was devoid of content, high on unsubstantiated assertion, and possibly bigoted.
But was it bigoted? Perhaps Delon was simply alluding to the rich cultural heritage of his fellow countrymen. Just like supporters of George Wallace had no problems with blacks: they just had an unstoppable love for state’s rights. Or a few others who may ask with absolute innocence, “What’s wrong with white pride?” These are logical possibilities.
They are not very likely, in my view. Another good call by the mods.
Fatuous nonsense aside,
FWIW, I think these sorts of disclaimers strengthen your credibility. All democracies wrestle with the line between permissible speech and hate speech. The US tradition is unusually sympathetic to the free speech side, partly because both sides of the ideological divide fear what the other side would do if given additional censorship powers. Of course this is a private message board, but the underlying ethic extends here as well. From another angle, there are scholarly papers on IQ on the like that a board devoting to fighting ignorance won’t want to ban discussion of. Unfortunately that opens the door to all manner of bullshitting.
Anyway, I’m just acknowledging that if the forum was sited in Britain, continental Europe or most other parts of the world, the line might very well be drawn differently.