Liverpool FC

[kinboshi]

If the term is used in Spanish-speaking South American countries as a racist term - then Suarez is probably in trouble, and deservedly so.  If it's not used as a racist slur then he shouldn't be punished.  I don't speak Spanish or come from South America so can't really say one way or the other.  My point is that the word itself isn't offensive in the same way as the word in English that it resembles clearly is.

We wouldn't have a piece of confectionery called something that was a purely racist term:

[kinboshi]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/17/sport/soccer-word-controversy/index.html

Interesting article.

A question, was anything that Suarez said caught on camera or by the TV mics?

[boldie]

If the term is used in Spanish-speaking South American countries as a racist term - then Suarez is probably in trouble, and deservedly so.  If it's not used as a racist slur then he shouldn't be punished.  I don't speak Spanish or come from South America so can't really say one way or the other.  My point is that the word itself isn't offensive in the same way as the word in English that it resembles clearly is.

We wouldn't have a piece of confectionery called something that was a purely racist term:

Meanwhile, in Holland;

http://stuffdutchpeoplelike.com/2010/12/05/no-16-zwarte-piet/

[david3103]

If the term is used in Spanish-speaking South American countries as a racist term - then Suarez is probably in trouble, and deservedly so.  If it's not used as a racist slur then he shouldn't be punished.  I don't speak Spanish or come from South America so can't really say one way or the other.  My point is that the word itself isn't offensive in the same way as the word in English that it resembles clearly is.

We wouldn't have a piece of confectionery called something that was a purely racist term:

How about if it's a racist term in Holland?

Oh and, 10 times? All used as a term of endearment, never in anger?

[kinboshi]

If the term is used in Spanish-speaking South American countries as a racist term - then Suarez is probably in trouble, and deservedly so.  If it's not used as a racist slur then he shouldn't be punished.  I don't speak Spanish or come from South America so can't really say one way or the other.  My point is that the word itself isn't offensive in the same way as the word in English that it resembles clearly is.

We wouldn't have a piece of confectionery called something that was a purely racist term:

How about if it's a racist term in Holland?

Oh and, 10 times? All used as a term of endearment, never in anger?

Ten times?  Did the cameras or mics catch it once?  If he'd called him a stupid ***** ****** (replace the *s with any standard swear word) 10 times, that would be fine.  The question is whether or not it was a racist insult, or just an insult.

I'm sure the 'truth' will out.

[kinboshi]

By the way, I don't know if he's guilty of racism or not.  I haven't heard all the details of the charge or what his (and the club's) response is.

On a Liverpool forum I'm on, I've been arguing the other side - as many seem to be cherry-picking the evidence to show him as 'not guilty'.

We've all heard black people call other black people 'n***r' in a way that isn't a racial slur. That doesn't mean in another context it isn't a racial slur.
I'm not saying the words are synonymous (from what my Peruvian friend has said, they're clearly not), but I'm saying that a word in one context can be harmless - and in another could constitute a racial slur.

Just because Hernandez used the word doesn't provide damning evidence one way or the other. Apparently, the use of the word 'negrito' is different in different countries (from the little I've read on the web) - and also the context was different.

Of course, if only two people heard the comments (Suarez and Evra) and Suarez maintains that it wasn't a racial slur, and his case makes sense, then no one else can say that it was a racial slur for certain.

If he'd called Evra a 'n***r' I'd want him punished, as that sort of racist language has no place whatsoever on a football pitch (or anywhere else). There'd be little, or no defence. As it is, the case doesn't appear to be as simple as that. Of course, he's a Liverpool player and a bloody good one, and I hope for his and the club's sake that he is indeed innocent.

[david3103]

By the way, I don't know if he's guilty of racism or not.  I haven't heard all the details of the charge or what his (and the club's) response is.

On a Liverpool forum I'm on, I've been arguing the other side - as many seem to be cherry-picking the evidence to show him as 'not guilty'.

We've all heard black people call other black people 'n***r' in a way that isn't a racial slur. That doesn't mean in another context it isn't a racial slur.
I'm not saying the words are synonymous (from what my Peruvian friend has said, they're clearly not), but I'm saying that a word in one context can be harmless - and in another could constitute a racial slur.

Just because Hernandez used the word doesn't provide damning evidence one way or the other. Apparently, the use of the word 'negrito' is different in different countries (from the little I've read on the web) - and also the context was different.

Of course, if only two people heard the comments (Suarez and Evra) and Suarez maintains that it wasn't a racial slur, and his case makes sense, then no one else can say that it was a racial slur for certain.

If he'd called Evra a 'n***r' I'd want him punished, as that sort of racist language has no place whatsoever on a football pitch (or anywhere else). There'd be little, or no defence. As it is, the case doesn't appear to be as simple as that. Of course, he's a Liverpool player and a bloody good one, and I hope for his and the club's sake that he is indeed innocent.

".... if only two people heard the comments (Suarez and Evra) and Suarez maintains that it wasn't a racial slur, and his case makes sense, then no one else can say that it was a racial slur for certain..."

really?

[kinboshi]

If no one else heard what was said, and one party says one thing and another says the opposite, without any additional evidence, you can be certain what happened?

[david3103]

If no one else heard what was said, and one party says one thing and another says the opposite, without any additional evidence, you can be certain what happened?

Did I misread yesterday's paper?

[kinboshi]

If no one else heard what was said, and one party says one thing and another says the opposite, without any additional evidence, you can be certain what happened?

Did I misread yesterday's paper?

I don't know, which one? Going to need more information than that to be able to give an answer.

[The Baron]

One black person calling another nigger probably would be racist. The word nigga has a different meaning.

Anywho from what a lot of journos are saying there's still no evidence. Only testimony. Haven't read today's rags though. Based on this I'm guessing John Terry is screwed then...

[kinboshi]

Not sure if the two are pronounced differently though, are they?

[The Baron]

Not sure if the two are pronounced differently though, are they?

No theyre not. Sorry, it just looked weird in writing, I wasn't trying to be pedantic.

[The Baron]

http://t.co/p8b0q5mj

[david3103]

If no one else heard what was said, and one party says one thing and another says the opposite, without any additional evidence, you can be certain what happened?

Did I misread yesterday's paper?

I don't know, which one? Going to need more information than that to be able to give an answer.

Telegraph reported Suarez as having admitted using a spanish word which he says he didn't think of as racist.
Is that a legitimate defence? I can call someone whatever I choose and say "I didn't think it was offensive"
Evra reacted to the comments on the day and Suarez presumably now understands that whatever his intent, offence was caused. A swift apology might well have saved an awful lot of newsprint and debate don't you think?