Am i in the wrong? (Racism debate)

[foxile5]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Yep, let's not give a fvck about other people. Because you and those around you are the only ones that really matter, right?

I didn't say that at all, I was criticising people who get offended on behalf of other people without ACTUALLY knowing if the perceived offended felt that way or not. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

 

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's possible the bloke could just have been being patronising to the guy on account of his age...but who knows?

It's entirely possible. So why are you so keen to paint the man as using the term boy as a 'racist term of condescension'. What we KNOW. What we can PROVE is that there was no racist language used, at all. 'Boy' isn't a racist term. Never has been. Whether or not it was racially motivated is only know to the speaker...so why are you trying to paint him as racist?

[Webbo]

I had the same thing with my black mate at school. I called him boy and didn't think anything of it seeing as that was what I was called at home, but he got offended by it. I didn't realise why until a few years later when I thought about it.

 

Is it justified or just being over sensitive? I don't know but I wouldn't deliberately offend a friend so I wouldn't do it again.

[Lionator]

God I hate the state of our society at the moment. On one side you've got the ultra liberals who go looking too deeply into things and come out with faux outrage. An example, the new Kasabian song is apparently offensive to people with mental health disorders because it has the word 'psycho' in the title, which as an anxiety sufferer, it's not. Then on the other hand you've got the people who hate those ultra liberals, yet the moment a muslim woman walks out of a shop in a hijab, it's the end of the world. When cadbury's forget to promote an easter egg hunt correctly, it's offensive to Christians despite the fact that the people who are offended by this never go to church on a Sunday because they're still hungover from their day long drinking session on the Saturday. Very Christian.

 

Where's the sanity?

 

In this case, stand your ground. You've done nothing wrong.

[Mike Oxlong]

Seems pretty black and white to me.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

No that is not racist. Racism is becoming increasingly a bigger problem because those who advocate against it, namely "progressive liberals," have done everything in their power over the last five or ten years to dilute what it means to be a racist. Pc and buzzword culture focuses so much on ironing out everything, that the actual route cause and problem slips through the cracks and people like you who clearly aren't about to pop a white cloak on and go and lynch black people are branded racists.

 

The fight against institutional racism was won 50 years ago in America and earlier in most other parts of the western world. The state is no longer discriminatory. Real racism of course still exists but until we stop conflating what racism is and stop talking about what divides us such as "white male privilege" it will continue to exist.

1

 

 

I'm not entirely sure this is true. The state itself may not be discriminatory but elements within it - being human - certainly are, and they can wield the states power.

 

I can see where you're coming from, though.

 

3 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

I didn't say that at all, I was criticising people who get offended on behalf of other people without ACTUALLY knowing if the perceived offended felt that way or not. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

 

It's entirely possible. So why are you so keen to paint the man as using the term boy as a 'racist term of condescension'. What we KNOW. What we can PROVE is that there was no racist language used, at all. 'Boy' isn't a racist term. Never has been. Whether or not it was racially motivated is only know to the speaker...so why are you trying to paint him as racist?

 

Yeah, I'd just gotten up and was pre-caffeine and the way you phrased what you did got me in an annoyed ad hominem mood. Apologies.

 

You could give the guy the benefit of the doubt and say that he was going after the guy on account of his age, and the only one who really knows the intent was the speaker himself, as you say - but 'boy' can and has been used as a racially derogatory term in the US - that's a matter of record...so I'm not sure you're right on that one.  

[Benguin]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I'm not entirely sure this is true. The state itself may not be discriminatory but elements within it - being human - certainly are, and they can wield the states power.

 

I can see where you're coming from, though.

 

 

Can you give me an example?

[foxile5]

Just now, leicsmac said:

 

You could give the guy the benefit of the doubt and say that he was going after the guy on account of his age, and the only one who really knows the intent was the speaker himself, as you say - but 'boy' can and has been used as a racially derogatory term in the US - that's a matter of record...so I'm not sure you're right on that one.  

No problem.

 

We have to accept it at face value, else every unsavory comment and action will be interpreted as racism. As said earlier in the thread, there's enough overt racism in America to keep people occupied, without having to look for it.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Can you give me an example?

Here's two.

 

1.) Voter suppression (this is just one example, there are many more): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-voter-id_us_579b8862e4b08a8e8b5de534

 

(Yes, I know it's HuffPo but the appeals court ruling is a matter of record.)

 

2.) Elements within the police who abuse their power: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-black-americans-killed-by-police/

 

(Not what you'd call five-sigma conclusive, but...)

 

I think these are two areas where elements within the state use that institution as a way to assert their own racist power, and so such power is applied in the name of the state.

[RonnieTodger]

12 minutes ago, Lionator said:

God I hate the state of our society at the moment. On one side you've got the ultra liberals who go looking too deeply into things and come out with faux outrage. An example, the new Kasabian song is apparently offensive to people with mental health disorders because it has the word 'psycho' in the title, which as an anxiety sufferer, it's not. Then on the other hand you've got the people who hate those ultra liberals, yet the moment a muslim woman walks out of a shop in a hijab, it's the end of the world. When cadbury's forget to promote an easter egg hunt correctly, it's offensive to Christians despite the fact that the people who are offended by this never go to church on a Sunday because they're still hungover from their day long drinking session on the Saturday. Very Christian.

 

Where's the sanity?

 

In this case, stand your ground. You've done nothing wrong.

This. 

Everyone just ****ing calm down. I saw that a radio show is being investigated for making jokes about Essex girls! I'd hate to work in a job where every single thing I said was under complete scrutiny. The faux-offendeds will stop at nothing until they have sucked the life out of every single sentence, so that we're all robots who aren't allowed a slip of the tongue. Take this stuff with David Moyes for example. It was stupid, he apologised. That should be the end of it. Instead we've got articles written about his silly comment showcasing institutionalised sexism. People say far worse things than that and don't apologise. 

Idiots want to make decent people villains. 

[Rincewind]

If you watch films like Oliver Twist you will hear  the term used by the gentry to street Urchins. Non whites cannot claim to be specifically singled out in this case. The Master has always thought themselves far superior to their subordinates regardless of colour race or class. 

 

If you hear the audio and not see the pictures how would you know that 'Come here boy' was being addressed to a non-white person? It is  no less offensive when the context is derogatory to anyone else. 

[Nick]

In American and British history - Black children and men were referred to by white people as 'boy' in relation to both slavery and service (servants)

 

Its still contextually in some cultures deemed pretty inappropriate and racist for a white person to refer to a black person in this way - it's condescending and has its roots in a screwed up historical power dynamic. 

 

It it is however fine not to know this and not to be aware of it and to say it without any intent but be aware that in some quarters it may cause offence.

 

If you have loads of black friends it's the sort of thing you learn about very quickly and very early on - if you haven't got a massively diverse friend group you probably wouldn't know - or you just formulate an opinion that everybody cries racist over every remark, you can't say what you want ( especially if you are Thracian as it's your own country despite not being racist because you once had a 'jet black' girlfriend ) and the world is cursed by the left wing liberals who you once heard that somebody might have said that you can't celebrate Christmas Easter or St Georges day anymore because it's all racist - which of course is horse shite.

 

?

[Buce]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not entirely sure this is true. The state itself may not be discriminatory but elements within it - being human - certainly are, and they can wield the states power.

 

I can see where you're coming from, though.

 

Yeah, I'd just gotten up and was pre-caffeine and the way you phrased what you did got me in an annoyed ad hominem mood. Apologies.

 

 

 

 

Blimey, Mac, it didn't take you long to go native..

[MPH]

The term 'boy' is not racist even in this context as it does not reference colour in any way - i know white people who call other white people 'boy'. I do think however it can be used to differentiate one person from another for a few different reasons. Authority and rank being the main ones . It can be used as a put down but that doesn't mean its inherently a put down..

 

 

Personally, although i don't consider myself to be politically correct i try, for the most part, to avoid using certain words or phrases that might offend some  other people. That doest mean that certain phrase or word is wrong to say, its just that some words or phrases can have an emphasis or tone added to it that can change its meaning, or it can be misinterpreted and soon things can take a widely different path to what was intended, as the OP noted.

 

 

The reality is that its actually very hard to go through a week without offending someone no matter how careful you are. You just have to trust your own heart  and intensions in how you interact with people and what your conscience tells you when some people are incredibly easily offended. 

[Benguin]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Here's two.

 

1.) Voter suppression (this is just one example, there are many more): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-voter-id_us_579b8862e4b08a8e8b5de534

 

(Yes, I know it's HuffPo but the appeals court ruling is a matter of record.)

 

2.) Elements within the police who abuse their power: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-black-americans-killed-by-police/

 

(Not what you'd call five-sigma conclusive, but...)

 

I think these are two areas where elements within the state use that institution as a way to assert their own racist power, and so such power is applied in the name of the state.

The first example is a court, in which decisions made are binding on lower courts, overruling the apparent discriminatory law. I don't know much about the original law, so I won't comment but the fact that the overruling occurred demonstrates my point not yours.

 

I would never say all police officers are inherently good and do not believe for a minute that there is no such thing as a racist cop. However, when you look at actual crime statistics and police shooting statistics there is no disparity whatsoever in which race gets shot by police more. When 18% of Americas population make up for just north of 50% of Americas violent crimes namely murders, it is a given that guns are more often going to be pulled on blacks. Facts aren't discriminatory, they're facts.

 

These are not credible examples of racism being a component of the state. Isolated incidents may happen of course that what happens when you have large numbers but the state punishes discriminators not encourages them.

[Nick]

Just now, Benguin said:

The first example is a court, in which decisions made are binding on lower courts, overruling the apparent discriminatory law. I don't know much about the original law, so I won't comment but the fact that the overruling occurred demonstrates my point not yours.

 

I would never say all police officers are inherently good and do not believe for a minute that there is no such thing as a racist cop. However, when you look at actual crime statistics and police shooting statistics there is no disparity whatsoever in which race gets shot by police more. When 18% of Americas population make up for just north of 50% of Americas violent crimes namely murders, it is a given that guns are more often going to be pulled on blacks. Facts aren't discriminatory, they're facts.

 

These are not credible examples of racism being a component of the state. Isolated incidents may happen of course that what happens when you have large numbers but the state punishes discriminators not encourages them.

 

So would you say prison demographics in no way demonstrate disparity in criminal justice processes.....

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Blimey, Mac, it didn't take you long to go native..

 

 

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

The first example is a court, in which decisions made are binding on lower courts, overruling the apparent discriminatory law. I don't know much about the original law, so I won't comment but the fact that the overruling occurred demonstrates my point not yours.

 

I would never say all police officers are inherently good and do not believe for a minute that there is no such thing as a racist cop. However, when you look at actual crime statistics and police shooting statistics there is no disparity whatsoever in which race gets shot by police more. When 18% of Americas population make up for just north of 50% of Americas violent crimes namely murders, it is a given that guns are more often going to be pulled on blacks. Facts aren't discriminatory, they're facts.

 

These are not credible examples of racism being a component of the state. Isolated incidents may happen of course that what happens when you have large numbers but the state punishes discriminators not encourages them.

 

Regarding the court, the fact that the decision had to be made in the first place shows that someone was using the tools of the state to act in a discriminatory fashion. I'm glad that the higher court worked as intended but if elements weren't being discriminatory in the first place it would never have happened.

 

Regarding the cops, when every cop is held accountable for the incidents they are involved in of this type then I will share the sentiment that the state is punishing discriminators rather than encouraging them. Even with that aside, once again the fact that the state is having to take action against those within its own ranks shows that there are elements within it abusing their power.

 

That's been my point all along: the state itself isn't discriminatory, but people within it certainly are, and they use their state-given power to discriminate. That is discrimination in the name of the state, especially in the events when they aren't held accountable for it later.

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Benguin said:

No that is not racist. Racism is becoming increasingly a bigger problem because those who advocate against it, namely "progressive liberals," have done everything in their power over the last five or ten years to dilute what it means to be a racist. Pc and buzzword culture focuses so much on ironing out everything, that the actual route cause and problem slips through the cracks and people like you who clearly aren't about to pop a white cloak on and go and lynch black people are branded racists.

 

The fight against institutional racism was won 50 years ago in America and earlier in most other parts of the western world. The state is no longer discriminatory. Real racism of course still exists but until we stop conflating what racism is and stop talking about what divides us such as "white male privilege" it will continue to exist.

 

 

That's a very brave statement to make. and, in my opinion, doesn't show a lot of knowledge on how the American  government system works.

 

 

I will admit however that it does depend in what context you determine the words 'government' and 'state. I'll try to nutshell it for you though

 

 

Americans are quite big on their  constitution and particularly the 'we the people' referring to the government and there is much more of an ephasis on the people being the government and the  government being there to serve the people.

 

 

Now that's not wrong and sounds all great but with such a huge country a lot of power and 'self determination' is handed down to each individual state and then from each state to each district and then in each district each county. On a county lvl there are many more elected officials /decision makers than in England .so, in short  there's a higher chance to shape your own policies and not so much direction and guidance/ advice  handed down the chain to local government towns/ agencies

 

Which again sounds great but on a local lvl that can be open to abuse- in some deep south states there's still pockets of racism and those people are electing locally people who support their views. A quick google search for ' ten most racist cities in Alabama' will tell you what i mean.

 

 

It would be hard to argue with any Hispanic/ African Americans living in those areas that Institutional racism does not exist...

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

So would you say prison demographics in no way demonstrate disparity in criminal justice processes.....

 

 

 

There are three important issues to address when considering this:

 

1. Blacks make commit crimes at a much higher rate than whites. It's not racist, it's fact. Look at the crime statistics.

2. Over the past ten years, the incarceration rates of black people has declined by 1% or more each year. Whites have either stayed the same, increased by up to 2% or declined less than blacks. According to the bureau of justice statistics.

3. White people are reportedly 4 times more likely to cooperate with law enforcement than black people.

These are cultural issues and unfortunately liberals do not like to face facts and treat it as a racial prejudice.  

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Regarding the court, the fact that the decision had to be made in the first place shows that someone was using the tools of the state to act in a discriminatory fashion. I'm glad that the higher court worked as intended but if elements weren't being discriminatory in the first place it would never have happened.

 

Regarding the cops, when every cop is held accountable for the incidents they are involved in of this type then I will share the sentiment that the state is punishing discriminators rather than encouraging them. Even with that aside, once again the fact that the state is having to take action against those within its own ranks shows that there are elements within it abusing their power.

 

That's been my point all along: the state itself isn't discriminatory, but people within it certainly are, and they use their state-given power to discriminate. That is discrimination in the name of the state, especially in the events when they aren't held accountable for it later.

So what you are saying essentially is when you have 300million people, we shouldn't expect the odd incident? Come on really? Rape, Murder etc happens here in the UK for example because we have a huge population but it's not a fundamental problem as perpetrators are punished. In other countries however it is a problem as the state does nothing about it. Give me an example of someone who used powers granted by the state to be racist and was not punished.

[Benguin]

7 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

That's a very brave statement to make. and, in my opinion, doesn't show a lot of knowledge on how the American  government system works.

 

 

I will admit however that it does depend in what context you determine the words 'government' and 'state. I'll try to nutshell it for you though

 

 

Americans are quite big on their  constitution and particularly the 'we the people' referring to the government and there is much more of an ephasis on the people being the government and the  government being there to serve the people.

 

 

Now that's not wrong and sounds all great but with such a huge country a lot of power and 'self determination' is handed down to each individual state and then from each state to each district and then in each district each county. On a county lvl there are many more elected officials /decision makers.

 

Which again sounds great but on a local lvl that can be open to abuse- in some deep south states there's still pockets of racism and those people are electing locally people who support their views. A quick google search for ' ten most racist cities in Alabama' will tell you what i mean.

 

 

It would be hard to argue with any Hispanic/ African Americans living in those areas that Institutional racism does not exist...

First off, I am talking generally about the western world so I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of America. However, I am yet to here of a law that is upheld in court or by statute that discriminates or a way the state discriminates. Isolated incidents do not count as when you have a country that populous there will naturally be isolated incidents and nothing anyone does will prevent that.

 

Secondly, let's say I am wrong. What is censoring certain words going to do about racism? How does not using the word "boy" help in this highly racist state you seem to think exists?  

[MPH]

Just now, Benguin said:

First off, I am talking generally about the western world so I am not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of America. However, I am yet to here of a law that is upheld in court or by statute that discriminates or a way the state discriminates. Isolated incidents do not count as when you have a country that populous there will naturally be isolated incidents and nothing anyone does will prevent that.

 

Secondly, let's say I am wrong. What is censoring certain words going to do about racism? How does not using the word "boy" help in this highly racist state you seem to think exists?  

But you said instituional racism was defeated 50 years ago in America

 

 

And i wasnt dressing the point of the use of the word 'boy'  - just referring to your point that institutional racism was defeated 50 years ago in america

[Benguin]

Just now, MPH said:

But you said instituional racism was defeated 50 years ago in America

 

 

And i wasnt dressing the point of the use of the word 'boy'  - just referring to your point that institutional racism was defeated 50 years ago in america

I stand by that comment though, give me examples of institutional racism that is not isolated and was not punished/rectified.

 

 

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

That's a very brave statement to make. and, in my opinion, doesn't show a lot of knowledge on how the American  government system works.

 

 

I will admit however that it does depend in what context you determine the words 'government' and 'state. I'll try to nutshell it for you though

 

 

Americans are quite big on their  constitution and particularly the 'we the people' referring to the government and there is much more of an ephasis on the people being the government and the  government being there to serve the people.

 

 

Now that's not wrong and sounds all great but with such a huge country a lot of power and 'self determination' is handed down to each individual state and then from each state to each district and then in each district each county. On a county lvl there are many more elected officials /decision makers than in England .so, in short  there's a higher chance to shape your own policies and not so much direction and guidance/ advice  handed down the chain to local government towns/ agencies

 

Which again sounds great but on a local lvl that can be open to abuse- in some deep south states there's still pockets of racism and those people are electing locally people who support their views. A quick google search for ' ten most racist cities in Alabama' will tell you what i mean.

 

 

It would be hard to argue with any Hispanic/ African Americans living in those areas that Institutional racism does not exist...

 

What you get is a highly subject viewpoint based solely on KKK membership.

 

Hardly a scientific definition, is it?

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Benguin said:

So what you are saying essentially is when you have 300million people, we shouldn't expect the odd incident? Come on really? Rape, Murder etc happens here in the UK for example because we have a huge population but it's not a fundamental problem as perpetrators are punished. In other countries however it is a problem as the state does nothing about it. Give me an example of someone who used powers granted by the state to be racist and was not punished.

 

 

Amadou Diallo, Timothy Stansbury, Sean Bell. All murders that had a possible (if not probable) racial component but were not punished. There are a few others that I have read about, too.

 

Of course, you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that racism was a factor when the matter isn't investigated to that conclusion and the perpetrators not punished, but so it goes.

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What you get is a highly subject viewpoint based solely on KKK membership.

 

Hardly a scientific definition, is it?

 

 

 

Who said anything about i scientific definition? we are talking about institutionalized racism. The government, at any level is an institution