Was it said with malice ? - no Was it said in a jokey way? - yes Is it true that the PROBABILITY of it being factually correct is true? - YES, although not the only outcome, it is the most likely to occur. Therefore, it is not rascist. It was ill-advised and stupid to make such a comment but it was NOT rascist. The people that think it is rascist are rascists themselves...
I like the idea that judging comments to be "rascist" [sic] is somehow racism...
In this case it should be blatantly obvious to those defending this that there's a difference between describing a baby as "mixed race" and "milk chocolate". The former is accurate, presumably (although a little bizarre to feel a need to even comment on it); the latter has obvious overtones of the whole "half caste" thing.
Or have we learned nothing from Harry Potter and the half-blood thing?
I'd really need an explanation as to why SW is claiming Nasty's speculation is racist. Racist to whom? For referring to black people's skin as 'chocolate' or white people's as 'milk'? Or neither?
I do think you should be a little more careful with choice of words, perhaps, Mamy -- there's recent palaeontological evidence to suggest that various dinosaurs in the raptor family were perfectly capable of living together between different species without going off on one. T-Rex was a little backward I'll admit but even then it knew to keep its racism to itself.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.