I'd say it's at least classed as morally incorrect already

Erm, no it isn't! YOU just think it is and therein lies the problem!

Why is him thinking it is a problem, but not you thinking it isnt?

Tarred with the same brush as an idiom stems from the idea that two people who has been daubed in tar using the same brush would be indistinguishable. I can see how some people may think that the idea of painting people black (like tar) and saying they look the same has some racist undertones.

There are a lot of words and sayings which are quite old from a time when bigotry wasnt bigotry, that may now have relatively innocent meanings but are, and stem from what we would see as quite obvious bigoted tones. There are also woords which previously had quite innocent meanings which picked up bigoted tones.

Indeed so - "tarring and feathering" as a punishment has nothing to do with racism, it dates back to the 12th century in fact.

erm im not sure you read it, if you did, you didnt understand.

But surely that, in a nutshell, IS the problem. Just because someone decides to find something racist, doesn't make it so. If someone mistakenly misinterprets something then correct them...don't pander to the mistake! The saying has no racist origins whatsoever. The tar being black is a complete irrelevance to the point being made. You can't arbitrarily decide that anything that mentions, touches on or even, as in this case, has a subject matter that is the colour(!) black is inherently racist! To be honest, I find the concept utterly bizarre. 'To tar with the same brush' is not, nor ever has been, a racist slur. You can't just decide that it is otherwise there is nothing that can be said or written in case someone finds it offensive. If something is said from a racist, homophobic etc. standpoint then by all means react accordingly but don't look for offence where none is intended. I have to say I strongly agree with the earlier poster who said that this sort of oversensitivity does more harm than good. In truth, I've little time for rhetoric over common sense.

Nothing to do with what I think about it. It just isn't. Any "undertones" you apply to it are of your own making.

No, it isnt the problem. The problem is people for no good reason whatsoever putting their right and for some unknown reason necessity to use archaic language ahead of offending other people. Why on earth people are so wedded to these phrases I have no idea.

People saying all blacks look the same is a common racist trope. A saying which derives from painting people black and saying they look the same has obvious and clear racist undertones. Especially when using a word like 'tar' (tar baby is sometimes used as a racist insult, tarring and feathering was the punishment of choice by the KKK for black people who had the temerity to vote in the US) in it.

Now you can use that saying without any racist intent. You can realistically say whatever you want and claim no racist intent. That is your right.
Other people might be offended by what you say. They may think you are a racist jackass. That is their right.
You can blame them for that, you can call them oversensitive, say they are playing the race card. That is your right.
They may still think you are a racist jackass. Again, that is their right.

If you dont want people thinking you are a racist jackass, put a bit of thought and effort in to the words and language you use. If you offend someone and didnt intend to, apologise and move on. Its not difficult and its not an imposition on you that you shouldnt use some words and phrases because others might be offended by it. You arent the victim here because people might judge you for using these words and phrases.

If you dont want to be thought of as a bigot, dont use words or phrases that could be construed as bigoted. If you do so unwittingly, apologise. If you do use words that can be construed as bigoted, dont want to apologise for it and blame the people being offended for it rather than yourself for using them. Then you make it very hard to differentiate between yourself and a bigot.

Oh well, now you have decided 'it just isnt' the person who you may have offended will obviously thank you for elucidating them on that and apologise for being offended when you have decided they shouldnt. Great Work, you have made a friend for life.

Sorry I've just been for a pint with Jeremy Clarkson. Have I missed much?

If you are spending time with Jeremy Clarkson, you are probably missing a lot of things.

Mate, given my previous girlfriend was black, I think there's only one jackass here and that's the one throwing spurious accusations around.

I'll answer your post but please moderate your language. I put plenty thought into the words I use (I'm a musician and writer by trade) and if something is racist then I wouldn't use it. However something being racist is NOT the same as someone mistakenly thinking it is. The phrase in question is not, and never has been, a racist slur. The examples you use regarding tarring and feathering have nothing to do with the phrase. It is a nautical saying based on the practice of 'tarring the decks' of ships. I'm sorry if you wish to doctor every phrase to fit your agenda but I'm afraid, in this case, you're wrong. If you don't wish to use it because you mistakenly believe it to be racist then that is your prerogative. However there is no obligation for anyone else to make the same mistake. I understand that you believe everyone should speak and act as you do. This is not the case. It is called freedom of speech and is the cornerstone of democracy and civil rights.

Now on to your apparent indignation regarding causing offence. I recently spent some time browsing the Leeds board and there was one particular thread that caught my eye. In it there was constant reference to Shaun Wane as 'The Ape' and similar, even going as far as to post pictures of a gorilla in a suit alongside pictures of Shaun. I know you are a regular poster on that board and I believe you even posted on that thread. Could you please point me to your angry response to this blatantly offensive thread because I must have missed it. Indeed, let me ask you a question; had Shaun been black would you have been equally apathetic? Would you have found it equally acceptable to post a picture of a gorilla in a suit alongside the picture of a black player or coach? Do you not think Shaun, his friends, family and children deserve the same freedoms from offensive posts as everyone else? For the record, [uI[/u find your kind of selective and hypocritical indignation offensive. I'll assume an apology is forthcoming...

The sort of response I wish I could have written. Full of common sense and bang on the money.

im not sure what at one point having a black girlfriend was supposed to prove, im also not sure what I accused you of other than [ifor no good reason whatsoever putting their right and for some unknown reason necessity to use archaic language ahead of offending other people. [/i I didnt accuse you of being racist. I used 'you' in hypothetical scenarios. If you did think i was accusing you of being racist then i apologise (see, its not difficult)

Here is your problem, you are not the arbiter of what other people are offended by. You cannot decide that a phrase is or isnt racist. You can have your opinion but that isnt definitive. And yes, you are entitled to free speech, but one of the integral parts of having free speech, is remembering other are free to judge you for what you say.

I don't believe that you have to speak and act as i find appropriate. But how you speak and act will influence my opinion of you.

Once again, you can say whatever you want, but if you say something which offends someone, you can insist all you want, for ever and a day, that it isnt racist, that it isnt offensive, that the other person is wrong and you are right and that they are wrong to be offended. The fact is they are still offended and are likely to judge you on your insistence on using words and phrases they find offensive, judge you on your arguments in favour of their use and maybe that judgment will describe you as a type of person you dont wish to be described as. That is their freedom.
Whataboutery is often the last flame of failed argument.

If someone had posted a picture of a Gorilla in a suit next to a picture of a black man then there is obvious racism in there that isnt relevant to a picture of white man. It really shouldnt need to be explained why it is different.

You are of course free to argue that it is selective, or hypocritical. That it is just as offensive to see shaun wane compared to an ape as a black man. You are free to argue that anyone who doesnt agree is wrong, or oversensitive.
People on the other side of that may see your argument as ignorant and offensive. They may see it as quite offensive to see people equating a head coach at the top of a professional sport where there are 0 black head coaches being compared to a gorilla to the years and years of systematic and public indignities that image was used to put upon all black people. They may find the idea quite distasteful that a relatively rich and successful free white man in a stable western democracy is affected by that image as a black man would considering those images were, for hundreds of years, used as justification for some of the most abhorrent things mankind has ever done under Slavery.

The reason i wont apologise here, is i dont care if you think i am selective or hypocritical in my indignation. If thats what you think, thats what you think. Im comfortable with it.

If i had come across as ignorant, or bigoted on the other hand.............

Apology accepted and you do come across as a bigot. bigotry is not restricted to race or sexual orientation.

Bigotry

Noun

Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself:

As you don't even know the origins of the phrase you are pontificating on, you also come across as ignorant:

Ignorant

Adjective

"Lack of knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular"

Finally, the fact that you feel that insults are ok under [uany[/u circumstances shows both of the above. Do you honestly believe that insults don't affect someone because they are white, straight or successful? Seriously, that is your argument? I find your kind of selective indignation disgusting and disturbing. I'm happy for you that you're comfortable in your ignorance. However I'd prefer not to aid you in spreading it and, as such, will be leaving this discussion here.

I am perfectly tolerant of your opinion and your right to have it. I do however reserve the right to judge you on it. Your definition of bigotry and your use of it here is simply a pointless nonsensical rabbit hole where the word loses any meaning at all.

If you call me a bigot for being intolerant of what i see to be bigoted views, then you yourself are a bigot because you are being intolerant of what you want to define as bigoted views. You are hiding behind an utterly nonsensical and circular argument where anyone at any time expressing any opinion which doesnt accept the opposite as equally true is bigoted.

If you cant tell the difference between someone calling Shaun Wane an ape, and some using what is undoubtedly the loaded imagery of comparing an ape to a black man tells us you are being willfully ignorant of the history of that imagery. We know it is willful because you chose that imagery. You deliberately chose that comparison because you know that to refer to a black man as an ape is offensive. You know the history of its use as a racial insult. Thats why you chose it. If you didnt know it, you wouldnt have chosen to compare Shaun Wane being called an ape, to a black man being called an ape. You know all this yet you STILL chose to ignore that imagery and that history and the offense it causes. You want to pretend that Wane being called it is the same because you being right and you being able to say whatever comes in to your head is more important than you offending other people. And that is your right. You are free to think that way. But that will influence peoples opinion of you. It may lead them to believe you to be and describe you as things you dont want to be thought of, or described as.

To call [uanyone[/u an ape is an insult. I don't believe for a second that you don't recognise that. However. coming from a man who can't see the relevance of having a black partner in a debate about racism I suppose I shouldn't be surprised should you not.

As for the definition of a bigot I was referring to your attitude that it's alright to insult people based on their socio-economic standing. May I respectfully suggest you read up on the persecution of the Jews if you're struggling to get to grips with that particular concept.

By the way, I like the way that you think definitions are only relevant when they support your own viewpoint. The definitions of ignorant and bigot are as above. You sir, are ignorant and a bigot. It isn't rendered meaningless just because you don't like it! To be fair I did laugh reading your ridiculous attempts to argue otherwise; "pointless nonsensical rabbit hole where the word loses any meaning at all" is pure comedy gold. It has plenty meaning, thank you. You just don't like the fact that it quite plainly applies to you! Well I'm sorry for that. Maybe next time you'll heed your own advice and give thought to the words you use when next throwing insults around.

Incidentally, I chose the imagery of an ape in a suit because it was posted on your own board just last week, yet you chose not to respond when it was. Again, your feeble attempts to justify why you didn't is laughable and says more about you than I ever could.

The bottom line is this. I don't agree with your viewpoint and you don't agree with mine. That's fine; it's a free society. However, if you're going to argue your point I'd appreciate it if you'd at least be consistent as it's very difficult to debate a point with someone who thinks the meaning of words is important except when it applies to themselves, that it's wrong to insult certain people but others are fair game(!) and who rises in indignation over the explanation of the origins of a phrase on the Wigan board but fails to do so when someone posts a picture of a gorilla in a suit on the Leeds one. Just remind me; who do you support again?

how long has this thread got left to run? its not even close to being on topic to anything rugby related and has become a thread for people to express there opinions on people.

True. This thread has gone round in circles and up its own aris umpteen times. Perhaps a candidate for locking.

However, in the spirit of things: when I were a brat, my mam would send me over to the cotton stall in Rochdale market for a bobbin of ngr-black cotton. No-one batted an eyelid, it was an accepted term. Today, we understand it to be one of the vilest perjoratives going (regardless of the rap-music community "reclaiming" it - which is just a bunch of bolx).

The world has turned, either get off or catch up.

I never said that it wasnt an insult to call someone an ape. What a silly straw man. I simply said that it wasnt the same. Are we supposed to pretend that all insults are the same? That there arent degrees of offense? I hope not because that would idiotic.

Whose socio-economic standing have i insulted? Since when was 'Jew' a socio-economic standing? Or are you trying to pretend that i was saying its ok to say Shaun Wane is an ape because he is a rich, successful white man in a stable western democracy when it is clear to anyone what i said was that you cannot equate calling a rich, successful white man in a stable western democracy an Ape to calling a black person an Ape when rich white men in that self same stable western democracy presented black people as the equivalent of an ape for hundreds of years to justify their abhorrent treatment of black people.

and by your own definition applies to you. And everyone else apparently.
and yet you choose to add in a comparison to a black man. A comparison NOBODY else but you made. You and only you have felt it right to bring in imagery of representing an ape in a suit to a black man, and only you are choosing to ignore the history of that imagery.

If you are going to be disingenuous, be better at it.

You can choose to define racism, bigotry or intolerance how you want, but dont pretend that is the only definition of it.

Mirriam-Webster defines a bigot as [i: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)[/i In no way does that describe anything i have said.

i have no problem admitting i think it is ok to insult people in certain ways, i have no problem with people calling shaun wane an ape, no problem with people calling Tomkins a ratboy, Or Ryan Bailey a kn0b, I have no problem with people calling you whatever it is they choose to call you.

I am, however smart enough to understand that there are different levels of offence and different levels of insult. Unlike you apparently, i understand that there is a difference between calling someone an F'ing Fag and calling someone a silly billy. Unlike you apparently, i understand there is a difference between calling someone a N1gger and calling some a prat. I understand there is a difference between saying Shaun Wane is a big dumb ape and the loaded imagery and history when that same insult is levelled at a black man. I do, so does the RFL. You it seems, are very proud of not understanding those differences.

I think Zak Hardaker will return from his ban faster than these two will finish their argument.

Hardaker is an arrogant nob....END OF DISCUSSION.

And stomkins isn't?
Tosser!

Sam like Zak, is arrogant like the majority of all great sport athletes. Arrogance breeds confidence.

on the field of course he is same as zak hardaker but if you met him off it you would change your mind very quickly.