Let's just outlaw the simple act of raising one arm in the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The problem is that people are fucking stupid and desperate to be offended.
Printable View
Let's just outlaw the simple act of raising one arm in the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The problem is that people are fucking stupid and desperate to be offended.
I consider it an important part of our history. I don't like that they wrote on it. But, it comes off, so it's hardly in the same league as toppling it and tossing it in the harbour.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
More overreach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've been pretty clear that the right are being used as pawns too. The far right dickheads, your Tommy Robinsons and whatnot, these guys are pawns too.
I agree, but those protecting it are perhaps worried that it might not be someone dabbing some letters on it next time. If someone feels strongly enough about it to put themself at risk to protect it, fair play to them. Many of these people are vets, they're not all dickheads singing Ingerland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No-one's really being offended, they're just seeing them as a bunch of losers. Maybe they are just pretending they're at a football game; that would at least explain why they're so keen to start something up with the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
We're all pawns, I forgot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Except these guys in London today. You distinctly referred to them as bored people who missed football. So, which is it?
How do you know many of them are vets? I don't see any uniforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The police are guarding the cenotaph and Churchil statues 24/7. No-one else is needed there, certainly not to throw shit at the cops who are there to defend the very same things they claim to be defending themselves lol.
That's what I actually think, they are literally bored football fans who just want something to do, kick off with the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But yes, people are offended. If someone looks at a person holding up their arm and thinks "Nazi" then that is a kneejerk emotional reaction, it's deluded outrage.
Then it's idiots who just want a fight. Football twats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
There were vets, but if the police were doing their job, the vets will go home.
Please try to pull it back from pushing buttons, guys.
It's great that you disagree, but let's remember that our opinions are not our selves; we are more than opinions.
Focus on criticizing ideas, and not people.
Please don't try to characterize each other as "the left" or "the right" as though expressing one opinion classifies a person into an entire category of opinions on a multitude of issues.
Thanks.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
lol, like either of us is getting worked up here. How long have you been watching us go back and forth, months, years?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What fun is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Poop thinks the far right = football twats.
I don't doubt a lot of football hooligans are far right, but many of them also don't give a toss about politics, they just like to brawl. Some people on the left like to fight, too. One's political persuasion is not, that I'm aware of, a relevance when joining a firm.
mojo, this isn't an issue. We're playing nice.
I think there's a huge amount of people just saying "the far right" to describe anyone who looks stupid and hard.
So 1620 was a shitfest too?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYhndNMX...g&name=900x900
People vandalise statues - protesters.
People protect statues - national disgrace.
That's the media line.
The BBC have said this...
This is absolutely deliberate. They imply that it's a seig heil without actually saying it, because they know it isn't.Quote:
There were a number of clashes with police in riot gear as crowds - chanting "England" and raising their arms - surged towards lines of officers.
The fucking BBC.
Yeah the same BBC that was bending over backwards to defend Johnson up until about two weeks ago, suspending that woman who made that editorial about Cummings, saying the BBC 'can't be biased'.
Yep, the same BBC. So what's their game? It's definitely not honest journalism.
Getting clicks, I imagine.
You imagine wrong. The BBC don't care about clicks, they don't have advertisers to worry about. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The BBC is UK state tv, funded by the plebs. The fact they occasionally produce world class entertainment is just to ensure people think that's what they're paying for.
They're still being manned by people who consider themselves journalists afaict. So for them getting clicks is probably a form of reward, like a dog getting a treat.
https://twitter.com/BenTheTim/status...68592225746944Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
"out of all the people who would come and attack us it would be another firm of football."
Wrexham fans turn up in Manchester to fight those protecting memorials. Manc twat suggests Wrexham have links to the IRA, fuck knows if that's true, but not all your football twats are far right nobs.
Oh, and this...
https://twitter.com/talkRADIO/status...09671100723207
I can't lie, I laughed at this. And today's breakdance winner is...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EabT9_WW...pg&name=medium
Doubling down with the second beat up white person? I'm sure it's a black conspiracy why it's harder to find these examples.
Those videos, just like most other ones like it, could use some more context. Where these white people just minding their business before these incidents? Why were they there? If they were attacked unprovoked, obviously that's fucked up. The videos as they are are hardly proof of systematic widespread racism against whites.
I mean, it's lose lose, isn't it? I either post more clips, and I'm doubling down, or I don't, and I'm refusing to provide evidence.
Yes those clips do need more context, I agree. Like I said to poop, if you were interested, Twitter is at your fingertips.
Earlier today, he posted some fake news. I called him out on it immediately because I actually read the comments. I was interested, so I watched it. I didn't ask him to show me more racist twats singing stupid shit. I took it upon myself to find out the context.
There's a lot of this going on. If you're just following lefties, then you won't get it in your timeline. Stay safe in your echo chamber.
Let me be clear so you can decide how extreme I am.
I certainly have extreme views about the cause of what we're seeing, in that I think it's orchestrated by the elites of the world. Why, I don't know. I could guess, but it's futile.
I would like to see a global anti-racism movement that is inclusive, that campaigns against racism against everyone. Saying "well racism against blacks is a bigger problem" is actually making the problem worse, because you're giving special treatment to one particular race, instead of treating everyone equally. It directly contradicts the entire anti-racist message.
Anyone can be the victim of racism, and those who are should be treated with equal sympathy. Dismissing racism against whites is racism.
If black people and white people unite to fight racism, that sends out a much more powerful message, not only to racists, but to those who seek to divide us.
This massive social division is exactly what the elites want. You guys probably don't even think the elites are a thing, it's just conspiracy nonsense. I wish I lived in that bubble.
This is like a game of "spot the cunt".
I've found three. Guy with the cap is probably a cunt but he's not proving it here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaaNUU4X...jpg&name=small
The problem is that some racist black people feel empowered by this BLM movement.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eaa5sxrX...jpg&name=large
If a white guy is jumped by black guys and he beats them up, is he racist? Asking for a friend.
It's funny how certain movements like BLM are considered divisive by some because they focus on the most oppressed group.
This is like saying unemployment payouts are divisive because they only go to people who lost their jobs.
Or that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is divisive because it doesn't address cruelty to plants.
And Ong, we obviously have different ideas about what is considered 'socially acceptable'. To me, when white cops murder black people with little repercussion, there's an implicit statement there that this kind of act is socially acceptable.
To you, it seems that when there's a few videos of black guys beating up a white guy with little context, that means everyone is saying it's ok for that to happen because they don't stop shouting about the cops committing murder to shout about the guys giving someone a beating.
Is there evidence these beatings were shown to police and they decided not to press charges? If so, then I'd say we have a problem. If not, then I think you need to reconsider your idea of what 'socially acceptable' means.
It's not about the focus on just one group. It's also about the tactics.
Fun game - type in "WWII leaders" into google and note the images at the top. What do you notice?
As for what's "socially acceptable", it's not what you personally think "I'm ok with that", that's what you find personally acceptable. Socially acceptable means society turns a blind eye.
It's not though. Very few people are turning a blind eye. Nobody is pretending it's not happening, or that it's ok.Quote:
To me, when white cops murder black people with little repercussion, there's an implicit statement there that this kind of act is socially acceptable.
No, it's when people imply that racism against blacks is worse than racism against whites because of history. That's burying one's head in the sand.Quote:
To you, it seems that when there's a few videos of black guys beating up a white guy with little context, that means everyone is saying it's ok for that to happen because they don't stop shouting about the cops committing murder to shout about the guys giving someone a beating.
Not only do the perpetrators need to be charged, but charged with a hate crime in the same way a group of white people would if they were beating a black man. Is that happening? I don't think so, but I don't know this. We're still seeing a distinct lack of outrage, the outrage comes from white people who are then accused of racism. Go figure.Quote:
Is there evidence these beatings were shown to police and they decided not to press charges? If so, then I'd say we have a problem. If not, then I think you need to reconsider your idea of what 'socially acceptable' means.
Go on...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Did you google "WWII leaders" yet?
That perfectly proves my point, thank you. Society effectively turned a blind eye to police racism for decades. It's only in the last few years it's finally reached a flash point.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"Nobody" is a big statement. But fine, I'll grant you that people finally got fed up with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The key word here is "imply" which is another way of saying "this is how I read others' actions, without any direct evidence."Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well first, so far you've mostly shown pictures where there's one black man visible in them. So 'group' seems a bit overstated.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Second, to be charged with a hate crime you have to prove the attack was racially motivated. Still no evidence that's happened in any of those photos. Sure it's possible, but unless you have some kind of context you're going to have a hard time proving it, guv.
I saw a picture of a white guy punching a black guy in London yesterday. I'm sure there's more. Should they be charged with hate crimes too then?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
All you have to do is apply the law equally and it's all good. But, a hate crime is a serious charge, you can't just assume every crime is based on the race of the victim.
No, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Has society been turning a blind eye though? It's only in the last few years that normal people have such amplified voices.Quote:
That perfectly proves my point, thank you. Society effectively turned a blind eye to police racism for decades. It's only in the last few years it's finally reached a flash point.
Ok, nobody worth listening to. Did you only just get fed up with it? Is that why you think this is only just becoming a problem that everyone is aware of?Quote:
"Nobody" is a big statement. But fine, I'll grant you that people finally got fed up with this.
People imply it by treating it differently to other forms of racism.Quote:
The key word here is "imply" which is another way of saying "this is how I read others' actions, without any direct evidence."
Of course you need evidence that it's racially motivated. You're not going to get that from photos. Good job one of the vids I posted has audio of them shouting "slavery" as they kicked a white guy in the head.Quote:
Second, to be charged with a hate crime you have to prove the attack was racially motivated. Still no evidence that's happened in any of those photos. Sure it's possible, but unless you have some kind of context you're going to have a hard time proving it, guv.
Sure, if there's evidence they were being racist.Quote:
I saw a picture of a white guy punching a black guy in London yesterday. I'm sure there's more. Should they be charged with hate crimes too then?
I couldn't agree more. Are you satisfied that the Irish lad getting a kicking was the victim of a hate crime?Quote:
All you have to do is apply the law equally and it's all good. But, a hate crime is a serious charge, you can't just assume every crime is based on the race of the victim.
It kinda illustrates my point about some of the "tactics" employed by BLM, and the consequences of them. Do it, it takes a second. It's better to see than be told.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
See again, this is you expecting me to do the work to support your arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Either tell me what your point is, post a screenshot, or drop it.
Not all of society, but enough that it kept on happening over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
That's a pretty ignorant thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Everyone was aware of it before, but it didn't change. That's the evidence it was considered socially acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again, waiting to see the evidence on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I didn't hear that, but yeah that would qualify as a hate crime in my book. I'd have no problem with them being charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
To be clear, you can't hold all white people responsible for racial inequality. Nor can you hold any of them responsible for the sins of their fathers. So yeah, if that's what is happening those guys are twats and should go to prison.
That's the problem I was pointing out. You can't assume racism by default because one guy is one colour and the other guy is another colour.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm suspicious, but without context I don't think it's proven to anywhere near a legal standard. See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The Irish guy was the one getting beaten by people saying "slavery".Quote:
I'm suspicious, but without context I don't think it's proven to anywhere near a legal standard. See above.
I mean, even when I actually link you vids, you don't pay attention. I can't be bothered to engage with you anymore poop, you're not even close to good faith. You can't even be bothered to spend ten seconds typing something in to google.
It's too late now anyway, google fixed it, obviously surprised by the backlash. I'm not even going to tell you what they did. You could find out if you wanted, it's why DuckDuckGo is trending on Twitter.
Picture of the day...
Man in bra with pissy shorts, Britain spelt wrong on flag.
Very probably photoshopped, by still worth a laugh.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaeXSjRW...g&name=900x900
Like I said I never heard that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Oh ok didnt have the sound on first time. I heard "[unintelligble, something] slavery". Can you translate that dialect for us?
And how do you know the white guy didn't say something to them about slavery that set them off?
Context.
I asked you twice what the point was. You can't even be bothered to spend ten seconds explaining it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Its not trending on my twitter, maybe I don't follow enough righties.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Was it "stupid." and "four hundred years of slavery." he was saying?
And if so, what was that in response to? I find it hard to believe the guy was just walking along and someone jumped him to say "hey you're stupid cause you don't know about four hundred years of slavery."
Sounds more like there was some beaking off going on back and forth and the white guy said something stupid like "What are you protesting for?"
Dunno for sure though. But if you're gonna fill in the blanks, then I might as well too.
Poop is willing to blindly believe that someone singing "Ingerland" while holding an arm in the air is doing a Nazi salute, but needs more context when a black guy is kicking a white guy in the head while saying "something something slavery".
They weren't singing that, and there were a bunch of them holding their palms up. You say it's some Ingerland salute (whatever that is), which is good enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And you assume it was unprovoked, which is pretty telling.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
For a guy who claims to be against racism you sure seem to be in a hurry to see it in black people but not whites.
We're talking about this, right?
https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/statu...55011777794048
They are singing "Ingerland". It might be mumbled fucking garbage, but that's what they're singing. And this raised hand isn't a salute or anything, many people will hold both arms up in the air, it's just some people are holding beer. It's a complete nothing.
You assume I assume it was unprovoked.Quote:
And you assume it was unprovoked, which is pretty telling.
You seem keen to ignore the many times I've said this is a problem for everyone.Quote:
For a guy who claims to be against racism you sure seem to be in a hurry to see it in black people but not whites.
Watching that back, there looks like there *might* be one seig heil at the front. Maybe. The arm that goes up quickly and then straight back down, that's a bit fishy.
Actually, no I take that back. He does it twice, while looking around. Not a seig heil.
Ok, whatever you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Well, if it's provoked that changes things doesn't it? That's why we keep talking about 'context'. But, you posted it as evidence that black violence against whites was a) increasing; and b) socially acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My view is even if it's provoked it's still not acceptable, but it certainly is asking for it.
You say that, but in the next post you try to argue the above about how it's socially acceptable for blacks to beat up whites and nobody thinks that's a problem. Then you try to post all the evidence you can of blacks hitting whites. So really you seem to be saying you wish black people would stop being racist, while trying your best to downplay all the instances of whites being racist - saying instead that they're just bored football fans lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If I get provoked by a black man, and I kick him in the head while saying "that's for the cenotaph", is that ok? He provoked me, I'm perfectly justified in launching a viscous racist assault.Quote:
Well, if it's provoked that changes things doesn't it? That's why we keep talking about 'context'. But, you posted it as evidence that black violence against whites was a) increasing; and b) socially acceptable.
No it doesn't change it.
The vast majority of what we see on social media is lacking in context. That doesn't stop you from forming opinions based on fake news and deluded belief that a raised arm is a seig heil. Yet here you are using "context" as an excuse to dismiss footage of what I'm sure you agree is very probably a racist attack on a white man. There's enough context there to say that much. It should certainly give you cause for concern.
This is wrong. I wish everyone would stop being racist. And the people I said look like bored football lads, there is no evidence they were being racist. You imagined seig heils and even though you say you accept it's a nothing, you still assume these people are racist. I don't assume that. They could just be twats. Based on the footage we are discussing, I cannot conclude they are racist, not even probably.Quote:
So really you seem to be saying you wish black people would stop being racist, while trying your best to downplay all the instances of whites being racist - saying instead that they're just bored football fans lol.
The guy who looks like a Nazi, he's probably racist. I wouldn't refer to him as a "bored football twat".
Ong, you have to realize yourself that your position is really weak. You have some pictures and videos with no context and you're trying to construct a story around them that fits your narrative. Meanwhile on the side of BLM protests there are hundreds separate instances of police brutality, very few of which are lacking context or leave much room for interpretation.
I'm not saying there aren't ever any instances where there's prejudice against a majority, but if you can't even come up with a single instance that meets at least some standard of proof, then maybe you should concede that it's not a systemic problem.
Of course it makes a difference. If someone is walking by and you jump them for being white, that's an unprovoked attack and wholly indefensible. If that same person walks by, gives you a few sieg heils, and asks you what your problem is while calling you the n-word, that's a different matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Still doesn't make it ok to beat him up, but even the law considers such a distinction between provoked and unprovoked attacks.
Your little twitter hate crime trial is a sham and you know it.
Moreover, you still haven't shown b-on-w violence is either a) increasing or b) socially acceptable. So you can argue all you want about what happened in the video you posted; it still doesn't prove anything.
This argument would be a lot more credible if you stopped making excuses for white racist "football fans", and posting videos of alleged acts of black racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I literally just told you those football fans have done nothing to prove they are racist, and yet you still call them racist.
You are deeply insincere.
According to our glorious PM, there was "racist thuggery" at the protests. So I guess he's not buying your football fan bullshit either.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Like I say, insincere. You know full well that my "bored football twats" comment was aimed at the dickheads singing "Ingerland". Is Boris specifically calling these guys "racist" thugs? No he's not. And you know it. You know exactly why you're being insincere.
Oh I'm so sorry, I didn't realize you were only talking about a certain picture where you somehow know that theyre all football fans, which presumably precludes them from also being racist.
It appears everything needs to be slowly explained to you. I'm sorry this wasn't obvious to you...
The "Ingerland" chant is most commonly associated with football fans.
Being a football fan doesn't preclude someone from being racist, nor does it make someone racist. I'm sure some of those guys are racist, I'm also sure some are not. The footage in question does not tell us anything about racism. That's why it's highly insincere to keep calling them racists.
I've made it clear on several occasions that my "bored football twats" referred to those at the Cenotaph, so you're either fos or more stoned than I am.
You both keep pretending that anyone is not racist, and that's probably the biggest problem in this whole thing.
Literally everyone is racist. It's only through deep internal dialogue and cross-racial conversations and activities that anyone can hope to be less racist... but no one is non-racist.
The language is terrible. No one wants to accept that they are a biased human meat-sack with flawed perceptions and understandings. No one wants to accept that we all do accidental things which promote racism. Promoting racism is racist.
The assertion that anyone is non-racist doesn't hold up to any level of psychological observation.
So let's move away from treating the word racism like a boogeyman that no one wants to believe about themself. Lets move away from throwing the word racism around like it's an insult or a mark of a bad person.
We need to move toward being able to recognize unintended consequences of our assumptions. We need to move toward hearing each other's thoughts and letting those thoughts move us to growth.
Is it a pipe dream? Probably. On the widest scales, people are not like that.
But we, here, are not "people" at large. We're intelligent people who are trying to be better.
Let's be able to talk about racism without treating it like a condemnation of character.
That's pretty much what I was trying to say and allude to when talking about it a page or 2 earlier, you summed it up far more eloquently. :clap:
We started at the point that Ong claims b-on-w racism is both increasing, and is socially acceptable. The rest of the convo is just him trying to change the subject to make me seem like the one making claims without evidence about a single video (which I admitted to already), or telling me to go research his claim for him.
So yeah, it's pretty pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well so far, only three people here have admitted to having any racial biases whatsoever. If anyone else wants to add their name to that list, I'm sure we'd all be accepting of that.
We're not all racist. You're overdefining racism. Not everyone thinks their race is superior, not everyone discriminates against others based on race. That's what racism is.
I have racial biases. That's not necessarily racism.
I think the Japanese are superior. That's a racial bias but it's not racism.
If you know what I'm saying and you argue with the words I chose to adequately speak my meanings to you,
then I could care less.
https://xkcd.com/1576/
Not everyone wears capes or swastikas, or thinks other races are worthless, those are extreme positions. A more moderate position would be that some colors are genetically less intelligent, and an even less severe position would be that some colors are better at maths. It's a spectrum, all part of the same issue. Just because someone doesn't hold extreme beliefs doesn't mean their position doesn't negatively affect someone, and on a societal level even moderate positions turn into systemic racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If you think your race is genetically more intelligent than another, that's "superior" and it's racism. If you think your race is more intelligent than another due to cultural reasons, perhaps quality of colleges, that's not racist.Quote:
A more moderate position would be that some colors are genetically less intelligent
Not racism. The Chinese are generally better at maths, that's due to their cultural methods of learning. Stating facts is not racism. There are plenty of studies that show Chinese children outperform Americans in mathematics.Quote:
and an even less severe position would be that some colors are better at maths.
Did I use the word racism on either case? Stop thinking about this in terms of your preconceived notion of racism, and you'll realize those are all things on the same spectrum.
You were responding to my point that not everyone is racist. You implied that those things you said were "moderate" racism. You guys have lost the plot, I swear.
Racism is pretty binary. It is in fact well defined. Those things you said are not on the same spectrum. There is no spectrum. You're either racist or you're not. You either think your race is superior to others, or you don't. You either discriminate against people based on race, or you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Some racism is worse than others. If you're Chinese and sincerely think you're smarter than an African because of your genetics, fooled by the stats that show Chinese have a higher average IQ, that's not as bad as not giving someone a job because of the colour of their skin. But you're still either racist or you are not, based on the definition of racism and not what liberal minded people imagine racism to mean.
My "preconceived notion" on what racism means is based on the definition. I'm quite the pedant when it comes to definitions, I wouldn't say something is red if it is pink.
Pink is a tint of red.
Fine. Green then.
Here's a better analogy...
Racism is like a light switch with a dimmer. The light is either on or off, but there's also different levels of brightness.
If you're stating facts, the light is off. So to say "Chinese are better at maths than white people" is perfectly fine because the data supports the claim.
Forget anyone ever said a word about racism. Let's talk about dickish behaviour towards people, that is based on race. There are varying degrees of it. We all do it to some extent, because we're built that way. The whole population does not have to be huge dicks for some parts of the population to be in a situation, where they are constantly having to deal with dickish behaviour. There may be a few bad apples that are responsible for some of the most dickish moves, but as an aggregate, even relatively mild behavior has compound effects. To combat the dick, everyone needs to take part. Not just to not be dicks themselves, but to not allow others to be either.
I appreciate what you've said about what you mean when you use the word racism, ong.
That's not what I mean when I use the same word.
I do not mean thoughts of supremacy. I mean any prejudice based on race.
I often don't mean racism - per se - but bigotry in general. This is common public usage, and while I appreciate that there can be a better word sometimes, when we're embroiled in a world-wide protest about racial discrimination, I do not see any benefit to drawing a line between bigotry based on race vs. bigotry based on other tribal affiliations or nationalities. It's all the same BS, and in this context racism vs. bigotry is a distinction without significant meaning.
Saying, "statistically, Chinese people are stronger at math than other nations' people" is not bigotry, IMO
Saying, "That person is Chinese, and therefore good at math" is bigotry, IMO.
Whether or not Chinese is a race is a fine distinction to make, but not really relevant to understanding how racism and bigotry are essentially the same thing, but with some nuance about the particulars.
I sometimes get the feeling certain people would like to define racism in a narrow enough way so that it means they aren't racist themselves.
Wikipedia:
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Merriam-Webster:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism
3: racial prejudice or discrimination
Dictionary.com:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Britannica:
Racism, also called racialism, any action, practice, or belief that reflects the racial worldview—the ideology that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.
Clearly there's a singular, unambiguous definition for racism, and it's that stuff right there and I'm definitely not one at all.
Dictionary definitions are of no use to us, here.
Dictionaries only tell you how a word has been used historically, they don't tell you what the person you're speaking to or reading meant, only what others before them meant.
Dictionaries are useful if you're learning a language, and want to have a guide for which words to use that will best convey your intended meaning.
Dictionaries are useful when you're reading something and you have no access to ask the author their intended meaning.
Dictionaries are useless when you're in a conversation with someone who is there to ask what they mean.
Words are imperfect symbols of our meat-sack thoughts and feelings. All communication requires cooperation.
Let's all try to cooperate by understanding what people mean, and asking for clarity when we're unsure.
Let's not fabricate arguments from intentional misunderstandings or mischaracterizing what someone meant when we know better.
Ok so we can just redefine racism to mean whatever we want so everyone can be racist.
This actually sounds like a winning strategy, I like it. Dilute racism so much that it no longer means something bad.
On another note, anyone want to know what badgers sound like when they fuck?
RIP headphone wearers.
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/stat...60573658607616
For mojo - it's a black guy getting arrested and making a relentless squawking noise.
Here's a question for you... what have I ever said that is racist? Can you actually recall anything? I'm gonna bet you can't. The best you'll muster up is "Islam", which of course is not a race. And I probably said some xenophobic things about Germany and/or France which is just banter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Convince me I'm racist. Take any of those definitions that cocco posted, and demonstrate how that applies to me. If you actually convince me, I'll have a word with myself.
Those definitions all basically say the same thing... superiority and discrimination.Quote:
Clearly there's a singular, unambiguous definition for racism, and it's that stuff right there and I'm definitely not one at all.
Far better than defining it to really mean no one at all, at least in their own minds. That's kinda how everything else works already. A person can be just a little bit of a dick, selfish, greedy, aggressive, lazy, mean, ignorant or liar, and it's usually fine. A society will always have some of those qualities, but hopefully not too much and the antonym qualities of those keep things in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's 9 definitions and superiority is mentioned 3 times. The point I was making which should be abundantly clear is that there is no clear definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Prejudice and bigotry are both fine words to associate with racism. I appreciate "superiority and discrimination" is not the full picture.Quote:
I do not mean thoughts of supremacy. I mean any prejudice based on race.
This is a misuse of the word bigotry, because this isn't an intolerance. It's an assumption based on race, and is therefore prejudice, I'm ok calling this racism. But it's not bigotry.Quote:
Saying, "That person is Chinese, and therefore good at math" is bigotry, IMO.
Words have meaning. Maybe I'm just more pedantic than you, but I feel it's important not to misuse words. If the word you're using isn't quite right, find a better word. The English language is diverse.
It's pretty clear to me. They all use different words to say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
1. superiority
2. systematic racism
3. discrimination, intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, hate
Do you have any input on the actual discussion we're having? Thanks for the semantic spell-check though.
We were talking about how everyone was racist last time I gave a fuck.
Still not input. Does this conversation make you uncomfortable?
People know that racism is bad, and people believe themselves to be good, so they conclude that they are not racist.
(illogical: non-sequitur)
Fine.
ALSO
People know they are flawed; everything they think can't all be correct; there there are mistakes in there. Unintentional mistakes do not make anyone a bad person.
Unintended racial biases exist in our culture, and being a person who mistakenly believes things that are hurtful and unjust about race is commonplace to levels of absurdity.
YES, I am saying that being racist doesn't make you a bad person, in and of itself. I am saying that this bold-faced lie about what racism is and how it manifests has allowed people who benefit from the systemic racism to avoid personal growth and change, which only perpetuates the injustice being delivered on a daily basis.
Recognizing that the entire judicial system has been intentionally designed to vilify and criminalize black people isn't hard for anyone to accept. There are fucking quotes from past presidential advisors that clearly and plainly state that they were passing laws to do exactly that - to criminalize black communities without overtly stating as much. The practice of criminalizing the symptoms while spreading the disease is not a fairly tale, but a documented reality. Cocaine and Crack are the same identical drug. White people tend to use cocaine, and black people tend to use crack... yet, the difference in criminal penalties are different by a factor of 100. That is in no way an accident.
I know you accept that as reality.
What I don't understand is how you can then state that the system that is still in place, and has only expanded in munitions and reach with every president since Nixon has no bearing on your life, or benefit to you as a person. Or that your ignoring the reality of how this affects black communities doesn't warrant your attention and outrage.
P.S. This is too long already, and I've deleted a ton of stuff, and re-read this a dozen times, and I'm just tired of trying to state this any more clearly than has already been stated.
Feel free to criticize or ask any questions, but know that this is an imperfect statement of the situation, and that this topic is difficult at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Not at all. I find it somewhat ridiculous, and mildly amusing.
My input is... not everyone is racist. The basis on which I form this opinion is the definition of racism.
What percentage of people would you say are racist in the UK and the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If it helps your calculations, the percentage of black people in the UK is 3%, around 13% in the US.