Are You a Racist ?

  • Firstly, I be believe this to be a different thread to "The great debate on immigration, race and religion in the UK". This isn't about what is best for the UK and society, it's about YOU.


    I would kindly ask that nobody copies and pastes the dictionary definition, because I think we all know what it is. If we used the actual definition, I think it's fair to say that 99% of the population are indeed racist. I will therefore give you my definition of a racist, and allow you to expand otherwise


    My Definition - A person who will not take an individual of another race on their own merit.


    Well, that's it really. I don't see any problem with anyone who has formed an opinion on any race through their own experiences. To generalise is to be human. You see, in the snowflake world you can not say you dislike any particular race, because it will take them seconds to say "they can't all be bad people", which to be fair is true. That said, that's a bit like saying crocodiles aren't dangerous because there is one in London zoo that is a bit of a softy. You see, I am prepared to give any individual a chance, and I will befriend almost anyone if I like them. I don't care about their colour or their nationality, and I don't care about their religion, but that doesn't mean I have to like their race in general. I believe as individuals we should always attempt to get on, but am sensible enough, and long enough in the tooth to know it isn't easy.


    Now, put this thread on a left wing site and I will have ANTIFA knocking down my door, put it on an extreme right wing site, and they will accuse me of being an enemy to the state. You see, I don't consider myself a racist, but am not offended if others do.


    So what do you think?

    Don't make me angry

  • Yes. I can be racist and have said so several times on here. I believe everyone has inbuilt prejudices of one kind or another based not just on race, but education and class, physical characteristics like whether someone is small or tall etc.


    I take every individual as I see them, but I still think we're all tribal at heart and prefer that what's most familiar to us. That maybe wrong now and illegal, but human nature won't change.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I take every individual as I see them, but I still think we're all tribal at heart and prefer that what's most familiar to us. That maybe wrong now and illegal, but human nature won't change.

    I think many people feel the same. However I would be more concerned if devout Muslims moved in next door than non-whites.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • Lucky you don't see life in black and white, isn't it ?

    Yes I am fortunate enough to be intelligent enough to see and realise that life is not just black and/or white. ;)

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • I start with everyone I meet from a point of neutrality , I neither like or dislike , I let their actions speak for themselves , this is why I have no Muslim friends but do others from around the world regardless of colour or religion .

  • I judge people on their actions, not on their colour, race, where they come from, or anywhere else. If an individual, or a group, habitually do something I dislike, then it does affect my opinion of them. Example, I dislike gypsies in general, but I personally know a couple of gypsies who have 'gone legit', have always been decent and fair in their dealings with me, and I like them .... as individuals. This has not changed my opinion of gypsies, as a whole.


    It doesn't matter whether they are black, white, or whatever. Be it groups of lefties, or Muslims, or Catholics, if they habitually do something cruel, or turn a blind eye to crime, or some other anti-social action, then it naturally affects my opinion of them as a group. However, individuals I know personally would be judged on their personal actions, and not that of the group.


    I voted Leave, therefore I am a racist in the eyes of many and they still roll out the accusation at every opportunity.

  • My Definition - A person who will not take an individual of another race on their own merit.


    Now, put this thread on a left wing site and I will have ANTIFA knocking down my door, put it on an extreme right wing site, and they will accuse me of being an enemy to the state. You see, I don't consider myself a racist, but am not offended if others do.


    So what do you think?

    I gave my answer below yesterday evening but I noticed it didn't have a time against it, eg "20 hours ago". So I wondered if this was a FB program glitch or whether moderating was underway (in the great Times tradition!) and designed to give me the illusion that my posting was visible to all rather than just to myself.


    So here it is again, unchanged. And it now says "a few moments ago", so maybe my paranoia is unwarranted!


    ***


    I'll go along with Bibble's definition of racism: A person who will not take an individual of another race on their own merit.

    Long ago I saw a sketch in London’s only satirical club The Establishment, owned by Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Jonathan Miller and Richard Ingram (of Private Eye). It showed a panel of 6 erudite men of influence being asked to spot the odd-man-out of three men. We, the audience, couldn’t see the 3 male subjects. We could only see and hear the odd-man-out criteria that were reeled off, eg “he’s wearing a double breasted suit, the other two are single breasted, no, it’s that he has a handkerchief sticking out of his breast pocket, the other two don’t, no, it’s that he has a plain shirt, the other two have striped shirts”. The list went on and on. After 20 points of distinction, the curtain was raised. The missing distinction was that one of the three male subjects was black, the other two were white. Nothing has changed!


    That’s the problem, we have with racism. We can’t be honest.


    My position is this. Until that individual’s merit becomes apparent, I cannot help –indeed, reserve the right, to have faint suspicions or expectations of that individual based on what I see and hear, whether it be their clothes, speech, table manners or a host of other observable factors, which will include their skin colour. Another more perjorative word for "expectation" is stereotyping. Equally bad if you’re black and walking down a street near bars and clubs is “profiling”, the modus operandi of the police in tackling crime committed disproportionately by black people, eg knife attacks.

    But don't get over-excited. Stereotyping or profiling is still just a probability exercise, a working or provisional hypothesis based on evidence or experience. To avoid the unfairness, indignity and oppression, this stereotyping needs to be reconciled with Bibble's definition of racism, which is an insistence on giving that victim of stereotyping the benefit of the doubt. So we must keep that hypothesis to ourselves and suspend judgement until that hypothesis is confirmed. Even then, we should refrain from turning that hypothesis into an extremely high probability predictor until having built up enough examples. There will never be enough examples to make it a 100% predictor - the exception will always prove the rule …..since, after all, the rule is that there are always exceptions.


    But whether it’s selling cars or political parties or holiday destinations, target segmentation has been in operation since market research at the beginning of the 20th century. Long ago, the success of Harvey’s Bristol Cream in Britain was based on the unspoken strategy of Spanish Sherry Without The Flies. That’s how Spain was perceived all those years ago.


    We go through life making decisions based on probability, whether it’s choosing shares or a partner for life. Experience, whether biased, impressionistic or strictly evidential, leads us to expect Italian men to be excitable, sensitive, narcissistic and smartly well dressed. Jews to be shrewd about money and somewhat flashily dressed. Arabs to want bribes and overcharge and expect us to bargain for a better deal. Young blacks from Jamaica or St Vincent to have an above average tendency to rob and/or knife me (but have a great sense of rhythm which makes for good jazz but lousy driving (Hamilton being that glorious exception to the rule). Rednecks from Mississippi are more likely to be sympathetic with the Ku Klux Klan. And so on and so forth. Anyone who insists that these tendencies are entirely without foundation and without evidence is in denial. All we can do is give the benefit of the doubt and accept that the exception is the rule.


    So you tell me Bibbles: am I racist?

  • I think you kind of said the same thing as me. I would say no, but of course, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt :)

    Don't make me angry

  • I think you kind of said the same thing as me. I would say no, but of course, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt :)

    I was trying to define racism. Your single-sentence definition is great as a general principle but only if you can define merit and I would contend you cannot. Irrespective of whether the relationship under consideration is social or commercial you cannot define merit in a way that is entirely free of subjectivity, measurability and estimated probability. It's the reasons and emotions that lie below such simple statetements that reveal the degree of racism,if any.


    It's a profoundly interesting and important subject and if, after my 600+ words trying to think it through and be as honest as possible with the subject and with myself, all I end up with is a 1-line wisecrack about being given the benefit of the doubt, I've wasted my time

  • I was trying to define racism. Your single-sentence definition is great as a general principle but only if you can define merit and I would contend you cannot. Irrespective of whether the relationship under consideration is social or commercial you cannot define merit in a way that is entirely free of subjectivity, measurability and estimated probability. It's the reasons and emotions that lie below such simple statetements that reveal the degree of racism,if any.


    It's a profoundly interesting and important subject and if, after my 600+ words trying to think it through and be as honest as possible with the subject and with myself, all I end up with is a 1-line wisecrack about being given the benefit of the doubt, I've wasted my time

    Oh

    Don't make me angry

  • I was trying to define racism. Your single-sentence definition is great as a general principle but only if you can define merit and I would contend you cannot. Irrespective of whether the relationship under consideration is social or commercial you cannot define merit in a way that is entirely free of subjectivity, measurability and estimated probability. It's the reasons and emotions that lie below such simple statetements that reveal the degree of racism,if any.


    It's a profoundly interesting and important subject and if, after my 600+ words trying to think it through and be as honest as possible with the subject and with myself, all I end up with is a 1-line wisecrack about being given the benefit of the doubt, I've wasted my time

    I thought my summary was pretty good and done in far less that 600 words.


    We're animals, the same as all other animals on the planet. Yes, we're far clever than all other creatures, but we still have inbuilt needs, wants and fears that makes us tribal and prefer what is most familiar to us. I don't see it as any more complicated than that. You then add in stereotypes, many which have some foundation in truth and that just adds to the cocktail. And finally you add in experiences and that makes us all act and think as we do.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I don't think word count is in itself the measure of depth. Therefore if you can't see anything interestingly extra in my 600 words then you either (1) you are a master of succinctness and I am a verbose bore or (2) you standard of comprehension tends to be superficial and your favourite maxim is K.I.S.S. Either type places you in the ascendancy. Which means I'm just slumming through my declining years.


    I think it's too easy to brand yourself a racist. Would you be content or just go along with it if you lived in a part of America where Negroes still had to ride in the back of the bus and be disallowed in most hotels and restaurants?


    I know a lady, getting on in years, who lives in London and who certainly isn't a racist. But she is dismayed to be sitting on a bus in Central London or the West End and be the only white person on that bus. It happens a lot. Her dismay is because this isn't any longer the England in which she has spent her life. She doesn't blame, resent or feel spooked by these non-whites ..... although she wishes they would wear a deodorant ........ is that racist? She blames successive Governments in allowing such an abrupt change to take place where in what seems like just 1-2 decades she is a minority race in her own country. But for young while people, who have grown up in a multi-race environment they perhaps find it easier, even natural to be part of that multi-racial scene and not feel out of sorts. Maybe that's a good thing. It would certainly reduce congested tourism - if everywhere is multi-racial, where is the enjoyment and fascination of cultural exchange?


    Of course with Britain's feral young whites (for which we are surely world leaders!) or unemployed young whites (because black people may be prepared to accept lower pay and also accept a lower standard of living), racist abuse is an easy option. especially for shallow thinking whites who get depressed or oppressed about anything and everything. All to easy to blame it on the blacks rather than on the Government for letting them in, giving them benefits and allowing employers to pay them a minimum wage that damages the fabric of a white society.


    You say you can be racist but you also say you take individuals as you see them and you go on to say we're tribal and have inbuilt prejudices. Perhaps with a few hundred more words you could reconcile your contradictory statements, figure out which really applies and whether or not you are a racist.


    Alternatively you can compete with Bibbles for succinctness by just replying "Oh"

  • Terror police warn against new rules on Muslim hate May 15 2019 The Times
    Could make it illegal to criticise Muslim traditions, leader of Britain’s police chiefs has warned.
    Anti-terrorist operations hampered if May bows to pressure for an official definition of Islamophobia
    Sadiq Khan is in favour of the new rules to redefine Islamophobia and make it illegal.


    I'm sure this will happen. It could be Theresa May’s finishing touches to her legacy, the great practical joke that the Tory party gifted to the nation when choosing this excuse for a human being as “a safe pair of hands”


    Needless to say, it has the full support of Sadiq Khan


    This is ratcheting up the definition of racism. The only way for white British citizens to be cured of racism will be a lobotomy, voluntary or otherwise.


    I think if Parliament moves swiftly the new rules could be enshrined into law with great speed, possibly as soon as say 10 years from now.


    In the interim period there can be provisional laws so that Great Britain can put into practice this New Anti-Islamophobia Enlightenment. I would predict the following new no-no’s / forbidden utterances / possible insinuations / implied notions – and remember here that it isn’t what you mean by what you say, it is what other people might think you mean, and it isn’t necessarily what they think you mean, it is what the Sadiq Khans of this world decree some people might think that’s what you mean.


    So the following utterances or insinuations or implied or misunderstood notions will become verboten:


    - I’m not sure Britain is quite ready for Sharia Law


    - Why does she walk behind her husband?


    - It must be terribly hot wearing that Burka


    - I gather the police have evidence that 75% of all acts of Terrorism in Britain are Muslim-related
    (you can have this charge against you reduced if you add “…I’m sure that can’t be true”


    - I don’t mind a few minutes of church bell ringing but having to hear just down the road from me a call to prayer 5 times a day is a bit much


    - Enquiry to butcher: do you have any meat that isn’t Halal?


    - If they are going to stone their wives, I wish they’d do it indoors


    - Has your son returned from his Isis gap year?


    - Oh, really? (in response to “some of my best friends are Muslim”


    Conclusion? Saudi 1, Britain 0, Mission Accomplished, EU to follow

  • Alt story link This is from The Times stablemate (non-paywall)


    The road to hell is paved in good intentions.X(

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in red it is moderation. Take note.

  • Firstly, in answer to casablanca's post, "oh"


    Firstly, Islamophobia is an oxymoron. A phobia is an irrational fear, and having a fear of people who inherently enjoy running innocent pedestrians over in vans, and blowing up kids at a pop concert, can hardly be described as "irrational". Of course, not all Muslims take part in these atrocities, but it's also fair to say not every crocodile has bitten off a humans leg. Having a fear of a UK indigenous spider, the colour red, or a banana is an irrational fear, not Islam.


    When ever the word racist is mentioned it's rarely very long before we start talking about Islam and all the positivity it offers our society. I quite often wonder how we managed to survive before it hit our shores. The liberals who defend Islam, probably would have attempted to stop us bombing Berlin in the second world war, because most Germans were nice people. Anyway, moving on. Needless to say it is possible to be a racist without having a fear or dislike of Islam, although unlikely. Let's not forget, there are reasons to dislike other races. Afro Caribbean males are far more likely to commit crime than indigenous white males, and the vast amount of knife crime is black on black. East Europeans have held our wages back, and Romanians eat our swans. Nigerians specialise in fraud, and Somalians will slit your throat of a loaf of bread. Apparently to believe this is to be racist, although there is statistical fact that these generalisations are true. We are constantly told that one nation or race is not better than another, but we know this complete bo110cks.


    Now, despite everything I have said, I will happily befriend a person from the Eastern block, Somalia, Nigeria, and I would even have a beer with a Muslim (that was a joke). IN SHORT, I REFUSE TO BE TOLD BY ANYWAY, WHO I HAVE TO LIKE, AND WHAT I HAVE TO THINK. If this makes me a racist, so be it !!

    Don't make me angry

  • I think the intention to create new rules on Muslim Hate or Islamphobia deserves more depth of consideration than Dribbles choosing to educate us on the meaning of phobia. Besides which, her definition of racism (“someone who will not take an individual of another race on their own merit”) is in itself pretty superficial, blindingly obvious, if not plain dumb. I say that because one of the consequences of stereotyping is that it can lead to an irrational fear that a specific individual black guy (not a segment) is going to knife you and this somewhat conflicts with or erodes one’s perception of that person’s individual merit. Does Dribbles even understand the meaning of The exception proves the rule”?


    Dribbles says it is possible to be a racist without having a fear or dislike of Islam. I would say it’s more than possible. Or as Bill Bill Broonzy once sang (when queuing up for a daily employment in the Depression – and long after): if you’re white, it’s alright, if you’re brown stick aroun’ but if you’re black get back get back get back. It’s also possible, perhaps entirely rational, to have an exaggerated fear of Islam (for Dribbles when does exaggerated and irrational part company in describing a phobia?). Personal estimated probabilities (the basis for stereotyping) are, almost by definition, intuitive and loaded with attitudes, fears, assumptions, prejudices). So I need Dribble’s definition of phobia like an “oh” in the head.


    I suppose I should thank Dribbles for a world tour of perceived National stereotypes that lead to unfair accusations of racism. It plagiarises my explanation (no harm in that, there are worse traits) but it’s a shame Dribble’s version is more about examples than about explanation. Dribbles misses the point when saying the cited examples of racist generalisations are statistically true and therefore contradict those who insist that one nation or race is not better than another. Both beliefs are incorrect. Hasn’t Dribbles heard of “probability”? For example, I could find that Dribbles has a personal set of demographic, ethnic and psychographic characteristics that represent a 3 times higher chance (9%) than the population as a whole (3%) of being a child molester or arsonist or socially unhinged to a sectionable degree. Should I steer a wide berth around Dribbles or just take this still small probability “under advisement”, study Dribbles’ demeanour more carefully, ignore Dribble’s threat “don’t make me angry” as just childish rather than psychotic, and rely on my own judgement or intuition. Risk taking is part of living.


    As for Dribbles introducing such an interesting subject as racism and then arriving at a self- assessment that is as profound as Popeye’s “I am what I am” I can sum up my feeling in one character fewer that that used by Dribble …….


    O

  • Thank you for your post "casaplonker"


    Don't make me angry

  • No doubt about it, Dribble's sense of humour is not bad for elderly supporter of eugenics.


    At least I now know my place. Next time Dribble raises a question followed by Dribble's answer I will understand that the wise course is to remain a spectator rather than participant. Because the sad reality is that Dribbles can only think deeply about the question rather than the answer.


    Whoever said brevity is the soul of wit is a dim wit. After all, look where it appears


    POLONIUS
    This business is well ended
    My liege, and madam, to expostulate
    What majesty should be, what duty is,
    Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
    Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
    Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
    And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
    I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
    Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
    What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
    But let that go.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.