Mimi wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
Yeah, a lot of fights don't involve race until someone wants to play the race card.
A lot of - where's your evidence?
Also, the "race card". Nice.
Anecdotal.
I call bullshit on that. There will be some for sure, but not a lot compared with the number of actual racially-motivated attacks. You seem to be insinuating that most PoC have a chip on their shoulder and will use the "race card" as an excuse.
You seem to suggest that only PoC will define race as a motivator to violence made upon them.
Bit racist.
Reverse racism doesn't exist. Power + prejudice = racism.
http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/reverse ... snt-exist/
Aamer Rahman actually managed to turn this into a good stand up bit.
Anyway I can't be racist towards white people. I have white friends.
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
I'd say the majority are good.
Surely it's 50%?
Relatively-speaking, I guess so...
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
I'd say the majority are good.
Surely it's 50%?
Relatively-speaking, I guess so...
I'm not a murderer. Some of my best friends are dead.
....facking hell.... 
I'm not sexist! My Mum was a woman.
Mr Russell wrote:
I'm not a murderer. Some of my best friends are dead.
Yes, the last bit was a joke. Cheer up buddy!
My dad's more gender-sexuality-aware that your dad!
/pokes tongue
/pokes tongue
Cavey wrote:
....facking hell....
Remember to stay out of politics and social sciences! Stick to bikes and cars and things. You promised.
What about the Rotherham Grooming Problems where white girls were specifically targetted by Pakistani men?
I like that Lego dude with the mirror shades.
MaliA wrote:
What about the Rotherham Grooming Problems where white girls were specifically targetted by Pakistani men?
Disgusting. But not racism. The girls were oppressed by being female, not by being white. Did you even read the article?
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
....facking hell....
Remember to stay out of politics and social sciences! Stick to bikes and cars and things. You promised.
Promised is too strong a word...
Besides, I'm sorry man but this is some funny shit. I've seen less tying of knots at a Scouts sailing class.
Cavey wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
....facking hell....
Remember to stay out of politics and social sciences! Stick to bikes and cars and things. You promised.
Promised is too strong a word...
Besides, I'm sorry man but this is some funny shit. I've seen less tying of knots at a Scouts sailing class.
No tying of knots at all. It is just how it is. I'm sorry you're unwilling to open your mind and learn about the world and how we all interact with each other, and that you're offended by the fact the world is set up to benefit you (and me).
Haha, I was only joking Myp. I've seen your 'reverse racism' thing before, and there's a whole rabbit hole of dictionary definitions to go down, but I'm not looking into what kind of authority 'the daily dot' is to see if they, or any other source, has the defining word.
You're a good chap, and I know you're working hard to make yourself better, even if I have reason to disagree with you.
You're a good chap, and I know you're working hard to make yourself better, even if I have reason to disagree with you.
Lonewolves wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
People very often do get abuse and are assaulted just for being in the police.
That isn't oppression. What kind of institutional power or authority do those who attack the police hold over them?
When one off-duty copper encounters a dozen gang members down a dark alleyway: quite a lot.
If a civilian kills a police officer they will go to prison at the very least. If a cop kills a civilian, it's highly unusual that any charges will be brought as any review panel will see whatever force they use as "necessary", because society on a whole sees the police as infallible.
I am not saying there aren't good police - I'd say the majority are good. But if you are a "good" cop and you turn a blind eye to the bad stuff that happens, you're not a good cop.
This is a couple of years old, but is a report on deaths following contact with the police.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/f ... t_1314.pdf
How many of them do you think are ones where a police officer killed someone in circumstances that would have resulted in a conviction, had they not been police?
Mimi wrote:
there's a whole rabbit hole of dictionary definitions to go down
Sure, you can quote the dictionary if you like. Or you could use the sociological definition like most social scientists do. You are welcome to your opinion, of course.
Just remember the dictionary was written and is now created by white people. Just another example of how society works for us.
http://sociology.about.com/od/R_Index/fl/Racism.htm
Quote:
Racism refers to a host of practices, beliefs, social relations and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yields superiority and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. Racism takes representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic forms. Despite its form, at its core, racism is constituted by essentialist racial categories that turn human subjects into stereotyped objects, and then uses those stereotypes to justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race.
Cavey wrote:
I like that Lego dude with the mirror shades.
...
Have you not seen The Lego Movie? You should fix that.
Mimi wrote:
Haha, I was only joking Myp. I've seen your 'reverse racism' thing before, and there's a whole rabbit hole of dictionary definitions to go down, but I'm not looking into what kind of authority 'the daily dot' is to see if they, or any other source, has the defining word.
You're a good chap, and I know you're working hard to make yourself better, even if I have reason to disagree with you.
You're a good chap, and I know you're working hard to make yourself better, even if I have reason to disagree with you.
Frankly Mimi you do seem to pick Myp up a lot re stuff like this, e.g. He's not being PC enough about X or Y.
Grim... wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I like that Lego dude with the mirror shades.
...
Have you not seen The Lego Movie? You should fix that.
I've seen bits of it with my grandsons, I think he's the baddie
Cavey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I like that Lego dude with the mirror shades.
...
Have you not seen The Lego Movie? You should fix that.
I've seen bits of it with my grandsons, I think he's the baddie
He's the baddie and the goodie.
He's very conflicted.
Mr Russell wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I like that Lego dude with the mirror shades.
...
Have you not seen The Lego Movie? You should fix that.
I've seen bits of it with my grandsons, I think he's the baddie
He's the baddie and the goodie.
He's very conflicted.
The cop, not myp.
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
What about the Rotherham Grooming Problems where white girls were specifically targetted by Pakistani men?
Disgusting. But not racism. The girls were oppressed by being female, not by being white. Did you even read the article?
Oxford grooming gang. All White female victims.
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
People very often do get abuse and are assaulted just for being in the police.
That isn't oppression. What kind of institutional power or authority do those who attack the police hold over them?
When one off-duty copper encounters a dozen gang members down a dark alleyway: quite a lot.
If a civilian kills a police officer they will go to prison at the very least. If a cop kills a civilian, it's highly unusual that any charges will be brought as any review panel will see whatever force they use as "necessary", because society on a whole sees the police as infallible.
I am not saying there aren't good police - I'd say the majority are good. But if you are a "good" cop and you turn a blind eye to the bad stuff that happens, you're not a good cop.
This is a couple of years old, but is a report on deaths following contact with the police.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/f ... t_1314.pdf
How many of them do you think are ones where a police officer killed someone in circumstances that would have resulted in a conviction, had they not been police?
I think that's the wrong question, because I would say most of them. Civilians aren't allowed to kill fellow civilians unless in self-defence. I struggle to see how people who have died in police custody can have been a threat to a trained police officer that would warrant lethal force. The more interesting question is how many of these deaths in contact with police had charges brought against individual officers. I would expect to see close to zero, and I don't believe that is possible if you take into account human error.
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
What about the Rotherham Grooming Problems where white girls were specifically targetted by Pakistani men?
Disgusting. But not racism. The girls were oppressed by being female, not by being white. Did you even read the article?
Oxford grooming gang. All White female victims.
Ands that's one of the reasons it was so newsworthy. Asian men grooming Asian girls is so common it rarely makes the papers -if anything the white privilege of the victims ensured there was such a high-profile inquiry into this shocking case (which is absolutely right there was one. But it shouldn't be the exception, all child sex exploitation cases should have been given this sort of care and attention).
Still not racism, though.
Cavey wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Cavey wrote:
I like that Lego dude with the mirror shades.
...
Have you not seen The Lego Movie? You should fix that.
I've seen bits of it with my grandsons, I think he's the baddie
Your grandson is Lord Business?
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
What about the Rotherham Grooming Problems where white girls were specifically targetted by Pakistani men?
Disgusting. But not racism. The girls were oppressed by being female, not by being white. Did you even read the article?
Oxford grooming gang. All White female victims.
Ands that's one of the reasons it was so newsworthy. Asian men grooming Asian girls is so common it rarely makes the papers -if anything the white privilege of the victims ensured there was such a high-profile inquiry into this shocking case (which is absolutely right there was one. But it shouldn't be the exception, all child sex exploitation cases should have been given this sort of care and attention).
Still not racism, though.
Rochdale.
"Judge Gerald Clifton, jailing the nine, suggested they had targeted their victims because they were 'not of your community or religion'."
See now, this is an example of what's so bloody infuriating; so now, only white people can commit crimes of racism...?
What utter wishful thinking tosh. Sorry man, but ain't how the world works. Racism is universally bad and it can be committed by anyone, of any sex, creed or colour.
What utter wishful thinking tosh. Sorry man, but ain't how the world works. Racism is universally bad and it can be committed by anyone, of any sex, creed or colour.
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
What about the Rotherham Grooming Problems where white girls were specifically targetted by Pakistani men?
Disgusting. But not racism. The girls were oppressed by being female, not by being white. Did you even read the article?
Oxford grooming gang. All White female victims.
Ands that's one of the reasons it was so newsworthy. Asian men grooming Asian girls is so common it rarely makes the papers -if anything the white privilege of the victims ensured there was such a high-profile inquiry into this shocking case (which is absolutely right there was one. But it shouldn't be the exception, all child sex exploitation cases should have been given this sort of care and attention).
Still not racism, though.
Rochdale.
"Judge Gerald Clifton, jailing the nine, suggested they had targeted their victims because they were 'not of your community or religion'."
Keighley
"On the video, she told police that when she tried to stop working for Choudry, he called her a “little white slag” and a “little white bastard”. He then pinned her to the ground and raped her, she said"
Yeah but that's hardly racism though Mali. You monster.
"White privilege of the victims"? Weren't a lot of them in care homes? And of course they got gang raped. I'm not sure how the privilege manifests here, unless the word ceases to have any real meaning.
Cavey wrote:
See now, this is an example of what's so bloody infuriating; so now, only white people can commit crimes of racism...?
What utter wishful thinking tosh. Sorry man, but ain't how the world works. Racism is universally bad and it can be committed by anyone, of any sex, creed or colour.
What utter wishful thinking tosh. Sorry man, but ain't how the world works. Racism is universally bad and it can be committed by anyone, of any sex, creed or colour.
But that's not how it's defined sociologically. You're saying it like I'm saying only white people are prejudiced. This is obviously not the case. But racism as definied by social scientists is how I quoted it above. Power + prejudice = racism.
Not that you seem to believe anything scientists say anyway.
You can be racist without any power. You only have to look at an EDL march to see that.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... ack-people
Nihal Arthanayake, a BBC DJ and presenter, said it was necessary for British Asians to have a “very uncomfortable conversation” about whether “Asians are being brought up to be racist towards black people”.
He said: “I think that there has traditionally been an issue with darker skin being seen as unattractive and people who have dark skin as inferior, and if that is applied within the Asian community how could that attitude not also apply to people of African heritage?”
Quote:
Nihal Arthanayake, a BBC DJ and presenter, said it was necessary for British Asians to have a “very uncomfortable conversation” about whether “Asians are being brought up to be racist towards black people”.
He said: “I think that there has traditionally been an issue with darker skin being seen as unattractive and people who have dark skin as inferior, and if that is applied within the Asian community how could that attitude not also apply to people of African heritage?”
MaliA wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
What about the Rotherham Grooming Problems where white girls were specifically targetted by Pakistani men?
Disgusting. But not racism. The girls were oppressed by being female, not by being white. Did you even read the article?
Oxford grooming gang. All White female victims.
Ands that's one of the reasons it was so newsworthy. Asian men grooming Asian girls is so common it rarely makes the papers -if anything the white privilege of the victims ensured there was such a high-profile inquiry into this shocking case (which is absolutely right there was one. But it shouldn't be the exception, all child sex exploitation cases should have been given this sort of care and attention).
Still not racism, though.
Rochdale.
"Judge Gerald Clifton, jailing the nine, suggested they had targeted their victims because they were 'not of your community or religion'."
Keighley
"On the video, she told police that when she tried to stop working for Choudry, he called her a “little white slag” and a “little white bastard”. He then pinned her to the ground and raped her, she said"
Yes, it was absolutely despicable. You seem to be overlooking where I keep saying over and over again that racism is a structural thing and not a personal thing. These are obviously very horrible acts carried out with personal prejudices by some awful Asian men. Nowhere am I condoning their actions. What I am saying is that it is not racism. Look at the definition again:
Quote:
Racism refers to a host of practices, beliefs, social relations and phenomena that work to reproduce a racial hierarchy and social structure that yields superiority and privilege for some, and discrimination and oppression for others. Racism takes representational, ideological, discursive, interactional, institutional, structural, and systemic forms. Despite its form, at its core, racism is constituted by essentialist racial categories that turn human subjects into stereotyped objects, and then uses those stereotypes to justify and reproduce a racial hierarchy and racially structured society that limits access to resources, rights, and privileges on the basis of race.
Quote:
Not that you seem to believe anything scientists say anyway.
Not when they're talking complete bollocks, no. It's called "having critical faculties"; seems to have served me well enough.
I'm not sure when social scientists became the accepted gatekeepers of anything. You can keep quoting someone's definition, but it doesn't make it right.
MrChris wrote:
"White privilege of the victims"? Weren't a lot of them in care homes? And of course they got gang raped. I'm not sure how the privilege manifests here, unless the word ceases to have any real meaning.
Because if all else had been equal but they were Asian or black girls, it would have barely registered in the news. This is called intersectionality. You can be white and poor and worse off than a rich black woman. But if you are a rich white man you are better off than that woman.
Lonewolves wrote:
racism as definied by social scientists is how I quoted it above. Power + prejudice = racism
As Curio mentioned earlier though - power exists in the micro, not just the macro. If I beat up an asian kid in an alley with a lead pipe because I hate asian kids, my power isn't coming from the institutional privilege of the white man, it's coming from the fact I'm bigger than him and have a lead pipe. And that's still racism. Your own quote states that institutional racism is only one of several forms it can take.
Cavey wrote:
Quote:
Not that you seem to believe anything scientists say anyway.
Not when they're talking complete bollocks, no. It's called "having critical faculties"; seems to have served me well enough.
*coughs but it sounds like Climate Change*
MrChris wrote:
I'm not sure when social scientists became the accepted gatekeepers of anything. You can keep quoting someone's definition, but it doesn't make it right.
Because they're the experts on sociology? Unless you're now questioning physics professors on what they decide to define certain particles as...
@MrChris
Quite.
Scientists take a crap on the bog every morning, and guess what, it still stinks.
You heard it here first, folks.
Quite.
Scientists take a crap on the bog every morning, and guess what, it still stinks.
You heard it here first, folks.
Lonewolves wrote:
Cavey wrote:
See now, this is an example of what's so bloody infuriating; so now, only white people can commit crimes of racism...?
What utter wishful thinking tosh. Sorry man, but ain't how the world works. Racism is universally bad and it can be committed by anyone, of any sex, creed or colour.
What utter wishful thinking tosh. Sorry man, but ain't how the world works. Racism is universally bad and it can be committed by anyone, of any sex, creed or colour.
But that's not how it's defined sociologically. You're saying it like I'm saying only white people are prejudiced. This is obviously not the case. But racism as definied by social scientists is how I quoted it above. Power + prejudice = racism.
Not that you seem to believe anything scientists say anyway.
But, however well intentioned, all you are doing now is winding people up by insisting on semantic points.
Also, you can choose where you want to place the box containing the equation. On a large scale there is clearly imbalance in favour of white folk in our society (UK), just as there is for straight, male, cis, etc.
You can drill down to lower levels of communities or higher levels (global, continental, etc) where the balance of power is actually substantially different. Within the confines of a particular school, estate etc then power + prejudice can absolutely be used in a direction other than white - PoC. Escape those confines back to the national level, and you're back to white privilege, etc.
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
"White privilege of the victims"? Weren't a lot of them in care homes? And of course they got gang raped. I'm not sure how the privilege manifests here, unless the word ceases to have any real meaning.
Because if all else had been equal but they were Asian or black girls, it would have barely registered in the news. This is called intersectionality. You can be white and poor and worse off than a rich black woman. But if you are a rich white man you are better off than that woman.
But how does that manifest as a privilege for those specific women though? That's the but that's missing here. Either way they still got gang raped. I accept there are some alignments of class gender and race that are more privileged than others, but your application of it here is stretching it past having any real meaning.
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
I'm not sure when social scientists became the accepted gatekeepers of anything. You can keep quoting someone's definition, but it doesn't make it right.
Because they're the experts on sociology? Unless you're now questioning physics professors on what they decide to define certain particles as...
Physics is an actual science though
More seriously, Sociology is somewhat more fraught with subjectivity and potential bias, and I don't think racism is owned by the sociologists as a concept.
Cras wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
racism as definied by social scientists is how I quoted it above. Power + prejudice = racism
As Curio mentioned earlier though - power exists in the micro, not just the macro. If I beat up an asian kid in an alley with a lead pipe because I hate asian kids, my power isn't coming from the institutional privilege of the white man, it's coming from the fact I'm bigger than him and have a lead pipe. And that's still racism. Your own quote states that institutional racism is only one of several forms it can take.
A great answer to that in the article I linked to earlier:
Quote:
For instance, white people benefit from privilege and power when they aren’t arrested for drug crimes at disproportionate rates, while black people experience racism when they’re arrested, and sentenced, for the same crimes. This reflects a racialized power imbalance in the justice system. It’s about the privilege and power of white offenders (less likely to be racially profiled, more likely to have strong legal representation, more likely to be able to talk police officers out of an arrest) and the lack of social status for black offenders.
Whether you beat up an Asian kid because you hate Asians or he beats you up because he hates whites, this is because of prejudice. It is how you are both dealt with by the system afterwards that is different, and this is what is talked about by the modern definition of racism.
CRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISSSPS
Lonewolves wrote:
Cras wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
racism as definied by social scientists is how I quoted it above. Power + prejudice = racism
As Curio mentioned earlier though - power exists in the micro, not just the macro. If I beat up an asian kid in an alley with a lead pipe because I hate asian kids, my power isn't coming from the institutional privilege of the white man, it's coming from the fact I'm bigger than him and have a lead pipe. And that's still racism. Your own quote states that institutional racism is only one of several forms it can take.
A great answer to that in the article I linked to earlier:
Quote:
For instance, white people benefit from privilege and power when they aren’t arrested for drug crimes at disproportionate rates, while black people experience racism when they’re arrested, and sentenced, for the same crimes. This reflects a racialized power imbalance in the justice system. It’s about the privilege and power of white offenders (less likely to be racially profiled, more likely to have strong legal representation, more likely to be able to talk police officers out of an arrest) and the lack of social status for black offenders.
Whether you beat up an Asian kid because you hate Asians or he beats you up because he hates whites, this is because of prejudice. It is how you are both dealt with by the system afterwards that is different, and this is what is talked about by the modern definition of racism.
So, racism only works downwards?
MrChris wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MrChris wrote:
"White privilege of the victims"? Weren't a lot of them in care homes? And of course they got gang raped. I'm not sure how the privilege manifests here, unless the word ceases to have any real meaning.
Because if all else had been equal but they were Asian or black girls, it would have barely registered in the news. This is called intersectionality. You can be white and poor and worse off than a rich black woman. But if you are a rich white man you are better off than that woman.
But how does that manifest as a privilege for those specific women though? That's the but that's missing here. Either way they still got gang raped. I accept there are some alignments of class gender and race that are more privileged than others, but your application of it here is stretching it past having any real meaning.
If Donald Trump was murdered tomorrow you'd still have a hard time telling me he didn't lead a privileged life. I acknowledge this is an extreme example and those girls were not privileged in anywhere near the same way. In fact in a lot of ways they were oppressed (poor, female, working class).
I've already said multiple times what happened to those girls was awful. What I'm saying is that the reaction to the same crime but for girls of colour would have been met with a less robust response (or even worse, silence). This is because society in our country and other western countries inherently benefits white people.
Cavey wrote:
Mimi wrote:
Haha, I was only joking Myp. I've seen your 'reverse racism' thing before, and there's a whole rabbit hole of dictionary definitions to go down, but I'm not looking into what kind of authority 'the daily dot' is to see if they, or any other source, has the defining word.
You're a good chap, and I know you're working hard to make yourself better, even if I have reason to disagree with you.
You're a good chap, and I know you're working hard to make yourself better, even if I have reason to disagree with you.
Frankly Mimi you do seem to pick Myp up a lot re stuff like this, e.g. He's not being PC enough about X or Y.
That's because I love him. I genuinely do. He gave me away at my wedding and will always mean a lot to me. I don't know what you mean in regards to him not being PC enough: to me he is over-zealous in picking good people up for using wrong terms, when I think most of the time he knows they mean well. I think he does it for good reason, and I think for what he is trying to achieve it is good, but I think it sometimes comes close to calling people racist, when they are not, because they haven't devoted as many hundreds of hours to studying the subjects he is passionate about.
Myp, I say this to you straight, rather than in response to Cavey, but I'll never agree with you on the point of 'reverse' racism (what I'd think of as just racism), because I've been in too many scary situations where as a young white girl I was both threatened and twice attacked by people all the while calling me a white slut, or a little white bitch. Outnumbered in an attacks from people older than me, it's too strong a personal experience for me to think those people weren't racist and didn't single me out because I was a white girl walking alone, and that this would be thought of as not racist.
And I'm not so sure that the case in Bradford is that rare. At least three of the girls I knew in Burnley (including g both who I am still in touch with) had been abused by organised gangs of men from Pakistan. Both were white and said that it was white girls that were sought because they were easier to tempt with money, cigarettes, etc,
There may well be many incidents of Asian girls being abused in such a way, I have no experience of knowing anyone directly affected in those circumstances, but the case in Bradford is replicated in at least Burnkey and the refuge system and police know well that it exists as many of the abused girls come through that refuge.
Because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean, in my personal opinion, that we shouldn't afford the same definition to the case as if white men were targeting young Asian girls in the same way. The adult men have the power in this situation, and their targets are young people if s certain racial background. I don't think being born white in a poor, deprived area should mean that these girls are denied a racial aspect of the case being investigated as part of the police/court/counselling work, and if it were me I wouldn't want somebody telling me that I wasn't afforded the right to state that is been the victim of a racially motivated crime based on the fact that I was white, but obviously that is my very personal feeling and one that it actually hurts me to hear people dismiss, for my friends, people I have known, and to a lesser extent in relation to my own experiences when I was younger and living in the big melting pot that is the Borough Of Brent.
Page 43 of 60 [ 2971 posts ]