Evra accuses Suarez of racism

[BringbackBiscan]

Irish have thicker skin then other minorities?

[dom9]

Nothing to do with that. It was an affectionate term if anything.

[JHP]

I don't think it's just about intent.

It's like Homer's comment about lying:





So if someone uses a racial slur unintentionally, it's still a racial slur to the person hearing it.

More to the point, if I use a term 'innocently' because to me it doesn't have negative connotations but someone else says "where I come from that's racist" then I think it's right I take it into account in future and therefore don't use it again.

Clearly that may or may not be the case with the Suarez/Evra thing.

All the same, the idea intent is everything is not good enough - it's also about context, about whether or not you are aware of the sensitivities of others. If you still use a word when you know it offends people for whom it has racist associations then it's very hard to defend.

I agree with most of what you say and that a user should refrain from using a word when they realise it's a racial insult.

However if the user doesn't know it's a racial slur then I can't follow the logic that would lead to the user being racist. To me it can only be racist if it is used knowingly to cause racial abuse.

In the Homer case then I can see that one party can feel insulted and I can see that the other party should apologise when they realise they've caused insult but until they know the word is insulting then I can't see how they can be accused of being insulting.

I remember having learnt reasonable French and thinking I understood the meaning of certain words/ phrases. However I used them incorrectly on occasions when working in France and had to be told the error of my ways. I wasn't intending to cause upset to anyone but had.

[Red_Polo]

I agree with most of what you say and that a user should refrain from using a word when they realise it's a racial insult.

However if the user doesn't know it's a racial slur then I can't follow the logic that would lead to the user being racist. To me it can only be racist if it is used knowingly to cause racial abuse.

It's not about the person speaking being racist though, that's a very separate issue, it's about whether what they have said is racist.

[fah-q]

It's spelt "gawjus".

Enny fule no dat.

He hav a face like a squished tomato, chiz chiz

[JHP]

It's not about the person speaking being racist though, that's a very separate issue, it's about whether what they have said is racist.

Of course if someone uses a racist word then they have used a racist word and the recipient is entitled to feel aggrieved. However is someone has limited knowledge of a language then it isn't necessarily so that the user had intended into be racist.

But this is may be going off topic a bit if the accusation is that he used a Spanish word, in an English speaking country to a French speaker.

[Nicey]

As this pertains to Suarez it's a moot point, it is not racist no way no how

[JHP]

Just looked at the FA rules and it's racist behaviour, conduct or language. Therefore my view on intent is obviously irrelevant.

Wonder whether to be able to make the language clause stick the FA would need a list of forbidden words per language, I wonder whether such a list exist?

[Jack D Rips]

Read today that Suarez has been given another week to prepare his defence. Whatever that means.

[JHP]

Just looked at the FA rules and it's racist behaviour, conduct or language. Therefore my view on intent is obviously irrelevant.

Wonder whether to be able to make the language clause stick the FA would need a list of forbidden words per language, I wonder whether such a list exist?

If no one will disagree with me then I'll do it myself!

If the FA rule forbids racial language then the definition of language is pretty important. There are a number of definitions I can find but they seem to centre on one point, e.g. this definition:
Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.

Which would indicate the central point is the thoughts and feelings behind the sound not just the sound/ word.

[Neil Young]

He hav a face like a squished tomato, chiz chiz

Fotherington-Thomas?

Of course if someone uses a racist word then they have used a racist word and the recipient is entitled to feel aggrieved. However is someone has limited knowledge of a language then it isn't necessarily so that the user had intended into be racist.

But this is may be going off topic a bit if the accusation is that he used a Spanish word, in an English speaking country to a French speaker.

And therein lies the problem.

As for the intent issue, it may be a perfectly affectionate word in some circumstances but he clearly didn't mean it that way. It doesn't automatically mean it was a racial epithet but it's not neutral.

Anyway, we'll only have to wait another few years before the FA finally come to a decision.

[Red_Polo]

Of course if someone uses a racist word then they have used a racist word and the recipient is entitled to feel aggrieved. However is someone has limited knowledge of a language then it isn't necessarily so that the user had intended into be racist.

But this is may be going off topic a bit if the accusation is that he used a Spanish word, in an English speaking country to a French speaker.

Definitely, my point is that intent makes no real difference as to whether what they were saying was racist which is the crux of the matter rather than whether they as a person are racist.

As for your last sentence, totally agree, I think for those reasons this whole thing is ridiculously complex. It think it will be very difficult for the FA to make a just ruling on this.

[JHP]

Definitely, my point is that intent makes no real difference as to whether what they were saying was racist which is the crux of the matter rather than whether they as a person are racist.

As for your last sentence, totally agree, I think for those reasons this whole thing is ridiculously complex. It think it will be very difficult for the FA to make a just ruling on this.

I've prevaricated a bit but I think intent does matter. The FA rule forbids racial language. Language is the communication of thought and ideas. Therefore if the thoughts weren't racist in nature then racist thoughts weren't being communicated. And if the meaning of language is the communication of thoughts then if the thoughts weren't racist the language can't be racist.

It sounds good to me after a few drinks!

[rudedog]

Aye, surely all the FA have to do is ask a linguist from Uruguay if the word is considered a racial slur in Uruguay and if it is then Suarez is guilty as charged - if not, then the case gets dropped.

End of.

[Red_Polo]

I've prevaricated a bit but I think intent does matter. The FA rule forbids racial language. Language is the communication of thought and ideas. Therefore if the thoughts weren't racist in nature then racist thoughts weren't being communicated. And if the meaning of language is the communication of thoughts then if the thoughts weren't racist the language can't be racist.

It sounds good to me after a few drinks!

Not sure about that. If two people say the same thing in the same context and tone, and to the same person, then it conveys the same meaning regardless of whether they were thinking the same. Excuse the phrasing; I can imagine how after a few drinks that doesn't sound particularly good to you