No no. Adding. Adding to the discussion

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

So the person who last night complained about racism is himself a racist?

It is arguable, but you don't want to acknowledge it. The meaning of words can be misinterpreted, especially if you want them to be, and in my opinion this was probably the case in respect of the discussion about Archie's likely skin colour.

I'm surprised you haven't called me a racist yet as you're getting there by calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a moron.

Anything is arguable, as this site proves. As for whether it’s worth arguing about or even contesting is another matter.

Of course the meaning of words can be misinterpreted, especially if you don’t know the meaning in the first place. The context obviously can also be misinterpreted. That’s not up for debate. I’m responding to the exact example you provided, with a completely logical response. The word remains either at best offensive or at worst a racial slur if used in the context you described, regardless of intent. Ignorance is not a defence, nor does it make the word magically non-offensive or the statement itself non-racist.

The days of tolerating some old boy drossing in the corner using continually using offensive, or worse, language that was acceptable to some in the 40s whilst others around him make screwy faces and laugh it off are over. Age and ignorance are not an excuse.

The context of the royal discussion behind closed doors is entirely unknowable, and I’ve made this point already, it could have been in a perfectly acceptable context. For example pondering if his skin colour would lead to more negative press or discrimination. Not racist.

To build on your random example though, saying ‘Hazza old boy, just how coloured is old Archibald going to be eh?’ - same as the granny. Ignorant or intentional. Irrelevant.

TBF most people are morons. But disagreeing with someone is not a qualifier. Plenty of other factors at play

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

No. You’re missing the nuance.

A racist word is still a racist word in any scenario

As for whether the statement itself is racist, and subsequently whether the person delivering it is racist, is entirely dependent on both context and character.

Hence the reply to the granny example put forward above by another poster - racist statement, not racist person. Ignorance or nativity, or ‘being from another era’ is irrelevant.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (09 Mar 2021 10.35pm)

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Anyway

Moving away from logic into the realm of opinion, this more or less summarises my take on our royals. Or any royals really

‘Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.

Beyond this, it’s the stuff of children’s stories. Having a queen as head of state is like having a pirate or a mermaid or Ewok as head of state. What’s the logic? Bees have queens, but the queen bee lays all of the eggs in the hive. The queen of the Britons has laid just four British eggs, and one of those is the sweatless creep Prince Andrew, so it’s hardly deserving of applause.

The contemporary royals have no real power. They serve entirely to enshrine classism in the British nonconstitution. They live in high luxury and low autonomy, cosplaying as their ancestors, and are the subject of constant psychosocial projection from people mourning the loss of empire. They’re basically a Rorschach test that the tabloids hold up in order to gauge what level of hysterical bats***tery their readers are capable of at any moment in time.’

Superb

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.