Is referring to 'skin colour' racist?

Yeah but sometimes it's really, really difficult.

 

Not trying to pick an argument with you of all people. But you are generalising.

There is an equally strong argument to make that socio economic reasons push black people into sports as a way to escape poverty. They have more desire and drive and a bigger pool of the black population make an attempt to go into sports than their white counterparts who can more easily become surgeons, politicians or solicitors for example.

 

suppose another way to look at it is those doing the offending are not intelligent as they haven’t been silenced

 

Not necessarily.

Being offended doesn't always exclusively make you correct in your viewpoint.

 

I can see merit in this. Say for instance if I was describing an opposition player to a friend who has had a good game and he asks who? So I say the black lad on the wing. Am I really causing an sort of offence? I could rephrase and say the lad on the wing but why? There is no harm meant by it and it comes down to context.

 

Intelligent people can also understand where no offence is being inferred.

 

and also where it is

 

You'd already said that in other words. I'm just offering the other view. Just because someone finds offence does not mean they are right. They arent judge and jury as to what can be found offensive. I'd like to think most people are intelligent enough to see where real offence is. Ullyses mentioned something that had no offensive intent at all. If some decide that was offensive then more fool them.

 

Surely offence is in the hand of the offended. If you are offended by something you are offended. No one can tell you you are not offended.

 

Why? Why should someone dictate whats offensive and what isn't? All subjective of course but I go back to context and intelligence needed to comprehend what context means. I keep using the post from Ullyses but I think it's a perfect example. I can't speak for others but I know by understanding context that the poster of that comment did not mean harm by it.

 

And there's the problem. If no offense is intended but someone chooses to be offended , is it right to castigate the so called offender? We can choose to be offended by anything that takes our fancy, doesn't automatically mean offence has been intended

 

I don’t think I ever said it meant that offence was intended. I just said who can say you haven’t been offended. There are two massive different things which you seem to be confusing as one thing.

 

I can be offended at what you've just written. I could search and find some angle to suit my agenda. Does that mean that you should apologise to me? Should you really care at all that I find offence in something that you've clearly written with no offence intended?

 

don’t think I ever said anyone should apologise either.
Not sure where you are pulling this stuff from.
What I should be able to do is accept what you have said, especially if you explain why you are offended. Then use my intelligence to be able to rephrase my comments so I put the same meaning across without causing the unintended offence

so taking the OP comment. Does the skin colour make any difference or does he just want some big centre backs? Does it matter if they are black, white, brown, blue or green?

 

Jeez man this is the while point. You were being pedantic so that's why I replied. Can't people be intelligent enough to understand when someone is trying to be offensive and when someone isn't. Ain't gonna lie I'm pretty intelligent, I know when someone is looking to offend. I also know when someone isnt intelligent enough to understand that what they have said could cause offence. Going back to Ullyses original.comment, i.didnt take any offence by it because I understood exactly what the context it was meant. All this bollocks about stereotyping like the post was somehow demeaning.Yet I knew someone somewhere would pull him on it, which in the world we.live in today labels him a racist. My mum still calls people of colour coloured people. She means no offence. And I'd be upset and quite angry if anyone took offence at an 82 year old woman saying it.

 

I'm not confusing anything, I'm saying that offence can be taken when no offence has been intended and that is down to singular subjective feelings. No confusion just a simple fact.

 

The irony I've inferred from what you've implied has made my night.

 

Jamie Rayner has a habit of labelling Paudie O'Connor the 'Irishman' during commentaries. Is this then not a form of racism, he never labels Hendrie, for example, as the 'Englishman'.

I have no idea why Jamie persists with this habit, even though I'm sure he is not being racist, but it is still a form of labelling a player as different to his team mates

 

I agree Idle, in this day and age how do we know that Paudie identifies as a man, he should reword his comments as Irish person as to not risk offence.

 

Or he could identify himself as a lawnmower or summat, that's how bizarre we have, yes all of us, allowed this nonsense to happen...