"Maybe this will be the thread where white people can finally agree on what other races should find racist/offensive."
Given the topic of the thread, and the supposed stance taken by the poster, this deserves a response.
Ironically, it is the most racist statement quoted in this thread, loaded with presumptions directly related to race. There is no ambiguity about the racial references used. Please clarify again, Angus, if I am interpreting your statement incorrectly, but it seems like you:
- suggest "white people", as a generalised term, seek to prescribe what other races find racist/offensive
- imply that the disagreement within this thread is due to white people
- imply that people in this thread questioning the alleged racism must be white, making a seemingly impossible assumption of stance taken in an online forum being linked to race.
This is the problem when people try too hard to identify racism. They try too hard to see the world as delineated by race, ignoring other factors, and thereby become accidental racist themselves. I've seen it in other comments sections: "you must be white", "you must have never been subjected to racial discrimination" ... "because you are white". One great thing about making these arguments online is that arguments should be just about the arguments, not the characteristics or the situation of the person making the argument. It should be free from prejudiced preconceptions.
"Those spending time and energy arguing that the taunt was not racist and it needs to be proven racist: 1. have very unlikely encountered any racism and do not and will not ever GET it. 2. do not understand the inference of racism. the taunt was inferred racism and used to mock Mills."
I respond to these posts because there is an overzealous tendency to call out racism without consideration of other factors, other interpretations, and without much actual thought. Accusations of racism has become sensationalised and often misdirected. It is also common to see a mob mentality when these accusations are presented. This shouldn't happen because it is a very serious accusation. The issue that is the focus of this thread, in my opinion, is an example of a type 2 error. As it turns out, not only did the journalist not make the effort to analyse the meaning of the heckle, the journalist was so eager to attribute racism they they didn't even study the tape well enough to identify what was actually said by the fan.
Now as the story has changed, no "Jamaican dog", we see people adapting their stance, not changing their stance. The interpretation of the victim has become the story. Being offended is the reason. Penalties applied to the fan is the proof of racism.