Local papers hide severity of John Smit's alleged racial slur
[permalink]

I've come across a number of articles now referring to Springbok captain John Smit's alleged racial slur (I very much doubt it) to a Samoan bouncer (risky) in Sydney. Now how, may I ask, are we supposed to form a point of view when we are unable to gauge the severity of said slur? I am referring to the way the papers report the slur. So far, all we have been told is that John Smit called the bouncer a "black - - - -". What the fuck is a "- - - -"?

As we all know, swear words and racial slurs have varying degrees of severity - The 'k' word clearly being the top of the list. Now in order to get into an article like this we honestly need to know what the fuck we're talking about. For example, if they wrote 'black - - - - - -" then we would count the spaces and work out that they're probably referring to the 'k' word which would cause an uproar. But in this case they have used four blank spaces. Four letters are used for a multitude of words and swear words - fuck, c*nt (even I cannot say it out loud), twat and many more - each of them varying the severity of said racial slur.

So please, local newspapers, help us a little bit and give us the first letter at least! Was it "c - - -" or was it "f - - -" ?

Seth Rotherham
Editor
2oceansvibe.com
[permalink]