Anyone else see the Meghan Harry Oprah Interview? -Spoiler alert!

Forums › Off topic › Anyone else see the Meghan Harry Oprah Interview? -Spoiler alert!

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 16

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2671082 10-Mar-2021 14:35

Paul1977:

That's just not true though. Language changes and evolves. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s "Negro" was considered an acceptable term by both black and white people. In fact, the term "black" was initially considered offensive by a lot of black people - but now it is the preferred term in the USA.

EDIT: Ignorance doesn't necessarily equate to racism. It is perfectly possible to offend, without having any intent to offend. Intent is important.

Intent is irrelevant it is the effect on the target person or persons that takes precedent. Also ignorance does not mitigate or justify racism. It is the effect on the target person or persons.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2671097 10-Mar-2021 14:52

MikeB4:

Intent is irrelevant it is the effect on the target person or persons that takes precedent. Also ignorance does not mitigate or justify racism. It is the effect on the target person or persons.

I believe that intent is crucial. If I offend someone through ignorance or mistake, I'll apologise and do my best to make it right. I make mistakes, others make mistakes, we need to have a bit of leeway rather than binary absolutism.

For example, let us assume for a moment that I'm a member of an ethnic group who paint concentric circles on their chests. As such, I am offended by the use of the adjective "target" to describe people. Does that, plus your above paragraph, make *you* a racist? How sure are you that there isn't someone somewhere who would be offended? Should we not use the word "target" to describe people in case that person exists?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19068 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16309

Lifetime subscriber

#2671098 10-Mar-2021 15:01

I think people need to understand what racism actually is. It is thinking that the hue of someone's skin has any kind of significance at all, other than the false one others attach to it (which is racist). An innocent remark might be ' gee, I wonder if that baby's complexion will reflect the father or the mother'. This is like the redhead comparison. It is just curiosity and does no harm.

Saying ' I hope the child isn't too dark because that may affect its prospects in life' is certainly racist. It may not be badly intended, but it is definitely racist. Anything that attaches any significance to skin colour, with the possible exception of a need for sun block, is racist.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ezbee

2652 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3089

#2671106 10-Mar-2021 15:09

The real problem with British Royalty is that the taxpayer picks up most of the bills for maintaining a lavish lifestyle.
So accommodating Harry & Megan to be mostly out of the business while living partly on taxpayer tab is not sustainable.

Yes they do have their own money, but the whole firms lifestyle would have to change to live on earnings from their assets.
Um well there there is deciding how to divvy up assets that the taxpayer paid for or maintained them over decades.

Indeed they hit problems in their current situation.
Having a fortune that would be enough for everyone here to see out their lives very well is totally inadequate for them.

The crux is there needs to be reform of the whole British Royal system including being symbolic heads of the Church.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2671112 10-Mar-2021 15:17

Do some research on intent v effect regarding racism and you will many Academic discussion and thesis that cover this. So again I hold that effect takes precedent. Your very weak example using the noun "target" does not change this. Regarding apology that is a step toward resolution but it does not alter that effect on a person or persons takes precedent over intent.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2671113 10-Mar-2021 15:18

MikeB4:

Intent is irrelevant it is the effect on the target person or persons that takes precedent. Also ignorance does not mitigate or justify racism. It is the effect on the target person or persons.

Even your use of the term "target person" is pretty loaded, as it implies that the person who was offended was intentionally targeted. I'm not saying that it's alright for someone to say or do whatever they want just because they're ignorant. But I also don't think someone who is ignorantly using outdated vernacular, and intended no malice or offense, should be painted with the same brush as an actual racist.

Eva888

2762 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2427

Lifetime subscriber

#2671123 10-Mar-2021 15:41

MikeB4:
Paul1977:

That's just not true though. Language changes and evolves. In the 50s, 60s, and 70s "Negro" was considered an acceptable term by both black and white people. In fact, the term "black" was initially considered offensive by a lot of black people - but now it is the preferred term in the USA.

EDIT: Ignorance doesn't necessarily equate to racism. It is perfectly possible to offend, without having any intent to offend. Intent is important.

Intent is irrelevant it is the effect on the target person or persons that takes precedent. Also ignorance does not mitigate or justify racism. It is the effect on the target person or persons.

Intent is everything, especially in Law.

Handle9

11925 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9676

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2671124 10-Mar-2021 15:43

Still haven't watched it.

What I have watched is Piers Morgan losing his mind on live TV and walking off set. He has subsequently quit (likely to avoid being fired). Great fun.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2671130 10-Mar-2021 15:55

Eva888:

Intent is everything, especially in Law.

So by that statement effect is nothing. Really?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2671131 10-Mar-2021 15:57

Harry most certainly ought to know better than to behave like this. He is (or certainly should be) an officer and a gentleman and this sort of behaviour should be far beneath his dignity. He should be deeply ashamed of himself.

The other one, I expect no better of. However, I have said before that I won't call her a grasping, selfish, attention-seeking, rude gold digger, so I won't.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2671132 10-Mar-2021 16:00

MikeB4:

Eva888:
Intent is everything, especially in Law.

So by that statement effect is nothing. Really?

I think most would agree both are important. If effect was all that mattered, then attempted murder wouldn't be a crime. If intent was all that mattered, then murder and attempted murder would carry the same sentence.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2671134 10-Mar-2021 16:04

Paul1977:

I think most would agree both are important. If effect was all that mattered, then attempted murder wouldn't be a crime. If intent was all that mattered, then murder and attempted murder would carry the same sentence.

The effect of the action was the death of a person. The intent does not alter that effect.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Paul1977

5171 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2192

#2671136 10-Mar-2021 16:08

MikeB4:

The effect of the action was the death of a person. The intent does not alter that effect.

Not in attempted murder. The intent was to kill, the murder was unsuccessful so the effect was nobody died. If intent is not important, then no crime was committed because nobody died.

Attempted murder is a crime because of the intent. Murder carries a higher sentence because of the effect. Both are important.

EDIT: Intent may not alter the effect, but it should not be considered irrelevant either.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#2671138 10-Mar-2021 16:19

Intent v effect does have an influence on consequence and sanction. It does not negate that the effect occurred. I am going to leave it at that but I would suggest you look into this further as it is very relevant today.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#2671260 10-Mar-2021 19:13

I watched them interviewed in their palatial manicured garden, complaining that Archie can’t call himself a Prince, and I thought of all the families with parents earning minimum wage, working multiple jobs, struggling just to meet the basics, like the weekly rent and food on the table.

Privileged versus the privileged, and they expect us to feel for them. Yeah, nah.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 16