"Racist"

[Fusion]

I think this is abit of an overreaction though. I've seen some pretty bad forums, this is easily the best ever when it comes to these things. It is natural that a forum of this size with people of a million different backgrounds that when there is a racially charged debate there is going to be some friction and things may get somewhat heated. I don't see the problem with that and you only have to look at some other disgusting forums to know that CW is pretty damned good.

I have more to say on the matter but I'll leave it at that.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

'Conservative Right wing Idiot' isn't racist, no matter what twist you give to it.

No, but that's not all you said. You said that the fact that, in your opinion, everyone in the thread but two people was a "conservative right wing idiot" showed the "true face of the so-called civilised world". the clear implication there is that the opinions of a handful of people were representative of an entire cultural group (westerners).

In essence, the implication was that the "true face" of westerners was that they are conservative idiots, and uncivilised. That's certainly bordering on racism as much as anything I've ever seen on this board.

Take note: I don't actually think you as a poster are racist, but there's no doubt that the linked post is pretty close to racism and it's obvious why people might be offended by it.

 

[Sanz]

No, but that's not all you said. You said that the fact that, in your opinion, everyone in the thread but two people was a "conservative right wing idiot" showed the "true face of the so-called civilised world". the clear implication there is that the opinions of a handful of people were representative of an entire cultural group (westerners).

In essence, the implication was that the "true face" of westerners was that they are conservative idiots, and uncivilised. That's certainly bordering on racism as much as anything I've ever seen on this board.

Take note: I don't actually think you as a poster are racist, but there's no doubt that the linked post is pretty close to racism and it's obvious why people might be offended by it.

You can spin it whatever way you want to, I am not going to argue that with you or anyone else. And I dont really care whether or not you think of me as a racist. I think I know what I am and that's more than enough.

 

[Matteh]

You can spin it whatever way you want to, I am not going to argue that with you or anyone else. And I dont really care whether or not you think of me as a racist. I think I know what I am and that's more than enough.

And it's this kind of reaction that makes people think of you as a bit of a jerk regardless of any good points you make.

 

[Dick Rockett]

I think this is abit of an overreaction though. I've seen some pretty bad forums, this is easily the best ever when it comes to these things. It is natural that a forum of this size with people of a million different backgrounds that when there is a racially charged debate there is going to be some friction and things may get somewhat heated. I don't see the problem with that and you only have to look at some other disgusting forums to know that CW is pretty damned good.

I have more to say on the matter but I'll leave it at that.

Excellent post pasag. You make some good points there, although I still think that our relative merits compared to other forums shouldn't get in the way of trying to improve our own.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Most of the posters that bandy around the word racist too much, are usually the ones that nobody gives a **** about anyway. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with having a view of a certain country, that is negative, for no particular reason, ie. "I would rather South Africa win because I don't like Pakistan". However there is a problem when offensive language is used, and that is when it is to be called racist.

 

[Slow Love™]

I'll defend Sanz, 'cause I like him, and I don't believe him to be a racist. Firstly, the word "majority" was eliminated from his quote - while it's a weasel word, it does make a difference. Secondly, I don't think he is insinuating that the entire Western world is "uncivilized" - the reference to the "so-called civilized world" is a potshot at the occasional holier-than-thou prism we view the rest of the world through - and certain posts in that thread definitely exhibited this.

Having said that, I'd definitely agree that it was an offensive generalisation (particularly as in the thread it was incorrect, and more than two westerners were sympathetic to Sanz's view before he alienated them!), and Sanz should recognize that (and maybe keep a lid on that temper at times ).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I wasn't attempting to attack Sanz, for what it's worth, just pointing out why it was an offensive statement. Obviously it's just "spin" on my part though.

 

[Slow Love™]

I wasn't attempting to attack Sanz, for what it's worth, just pointing out why it was an offensive statement. Obviously it's just "spin" on my part though.

Dunno if this was addressed to me, but my comment wasn't having a go at you, mate - you already attempted to reassure Sanz that you didn't think he was a racist, so I didn't see it as an attack on him personally. I just had a difference in interpretation as to some of the remarks. I agree that it was offensive, anyhow.

 

[Mr Casson]

Sanz should recognize that (and maybe keep a lid on that temper at times

Christ, SL, I just can't believe that you of all people would say this. I've never found Sanz to be anything but an agreeable guy, totally rational and impartial, and as a personal aside, a valiant defender of my brand of humour. Such a top guy - and people like you are attempting to sully his good name.

For shame.

 

[Slow Love™]

Christ, SL, I just can't believe that you of all people would say this. I've never found Sanz to be anything but an agreeable guy, totally rational and impartial, and as a personal aside, a valiant defender of my brand of humour. Such a top guy - and people like you are attempting to sully his good name.

For shame.

Well, it's obvious that the two of you have a special relationship, but they do say you only hurt the ones you love.

But yeah, his temper can have a tendency to result in Lou Ferrignio like cameos.

 

[Matt79]

Racist is a label being used too much at the moment, and it is a pity because it ruins the tone of the debate and the vibe of the forum. I know I got sucked into a stupid exchange with Bhupindersingh where I responded in similar terms and, surprise surprise, he went thermonuclear and followed me around on the site having a go at everything I posted for the next couple of days. Honestly, its not what any sensible person wants to be doing with their time on the site.

Agree its hard to police however, and generally the members do a pretty good job of policing themselves - its not like we're shy of pulling people up!

 

[Jono]

I agree, it's been going on for ages on CW and even longer in real life. If anyone wants to sling mud effectively the first thing that comes out is 'racist'. For other things of that severity you need some proof, but it seems it's perfectly acceptable to cry racist without evidence whatsoever - like what happened with Hair.

Racist.

 

[Sanz]

Christ, SL, I just can't believe that you of all people would say this. I've never found Sanz to be anything but an agreeable guy, totally rational and impartial, and as a personal aside, a valiant defender of my brand of humour. Such a top guy - and people like you are attempting to sully his good name.

For shame.

Casson - you have enough people to defend your brand of humor and I am not afraid to say that I do like it esp when I can understand it. What I despise is your boorish attitude towards a certain group of people which you target relentlessly and when confronted you claim innocense like a 2 year old.

Even here your post is full of personal attacks hiding behind sarcasm.

 

[Sanz]

I'll defend Sanz, 'cause I like him, and I don't believe him to be a racist. Firstly, the word "majority" was eliminated from his quote - while it's a weasel word, it does make a difference. Secondly, I don't think he is insinuating that the entire Western world is "uncivilized" - the reference to the "so-called civilized world" is a potshot at the occasional holier-than-thou prism we view the rest of the world through - and certain posts in that thread definitely exhibited this.

Having said that, I'd definitely agree that it was an offensive generalisation (particularly as in the thread it was incorrect, and more than two westerners were sympathetic to Sanz's view before he alienated them!), and Sanz should recognize that (and maybe keep a lid on that temper at times ).

I was going to respond to what Fuller posted, but I didn't because I didn't want a thread on racism to focus on me, but now that it has become about me, so I guess I should say something.

First of all my post was "Only two westerners have come up with sensible posts in this thread........Rest of them just come across as a bunch of ignorant, intolerant, conservative right wing idiots. It is funny to see the real face of the majority of the so called civilized world."

It was quite obvious that I was talking about the western members on this forum who posted on that particular thread. Some of these member consider themselves as very open minded and what not but when it comes to Islam they very quickly take their veil off and resort to insults and sarcasm as was very evident in that thread.

Where I erred was when I said 'Only Two Westerners' - I could have used the word 'Few' in stead of 'two' and it would have been okay.

 

[steds]

Sanz, who's the **** in your avatar btw?

 

[Sanz]

Bismillah Khan

 

[Nate]

Casson - you have enough people to defend your brand of humor and I am not afraid to say that I do like it esp when I can understand it. What I despise is your boorish attitude towards a certain group of people which you target relentlessly and when confronted you claim innocense like a 2 year old.

Even here your post is full of personal attacks hiding behind sarcasm.

Agreed. Casson is getting too comfortable IMO, and needs to be put down.

 

[Nate]

Love Sanz`s sig for the record.

 

[Fusion]

I think Sanz is being unfairly singled out in this thread. I’m surprised that anyone would consider him racist at all. For example, on the current Darrel Hair ban issue, he has come out in support of Hair. He has taken on many people who have defended the ban (including myself). I view him as an independent thinker. I may disagree with him on issues, but I do not view his comments as being biased or racist.