What makes you think you're not a racist?

[Flosshilde]

oh for the 'doh!' smiley.

So yopu think that if you took sperm from a racist man and used it to fertilise an egg from a racist woman, & then took the resultant child away immediately it was born, & raised it in isolation, it would grow up to be racist?

[amateur51]

Yes, Boilk. I would too! You've learnt very quickly.

The dear fellow is distictly logically challenged and it's frustrating when he completely misses the point - but in his defence, I think that generally he means well.

Why is it OK for Simon to put me on ignore and then to discuss me in these patronising terms without my having any right of redress? Surely a right to a direct response at least would be natural justice?

And I don't even have an easily accessible emoticon to use!!

[Flosshilde]

I shouldn't worry, Am - Simon is just as condescending & patronising to boilk, who is apparently as adept at making an argument as Simon is.

[Pilchardman]

oh for the 'doh!' smiley.

So yopu think that if you took sperm from a racist man and used it to fertilise an egg from a racist woman, & then took the resultant child away immediately it was born, & raised it in isolation, it would grow up to be racist?

No. Was there anything I said that gave you the impression I would?

I was merely pointing out that your argument was a non sequitur. It does not follow that because some people are racist and some people aren't that it must be a conscious decision.

I think it is a conscious decision, but the fact that some people are and some people aren't is not evidence for that.

[hackneyvi]

... a racist? I am aware that the word has gained added modern nuances ...

It's a word whose meaning has, I suppose, inevitably evolved. Is it a word with a functional meaning, though?

Who and what has driven and controlled the development of its meaning?

The Bladder/Sexwhale remarks appear to indicate that a person can be presumed to be racist if they are not anti-racist 'enough'. Tokyo Sexwhale's rebuttal of Bladder's racism appears to precede any accusation. Was there ever an accusation of racism against Bladder or only a denial?

By extention, the implication of the instance suggests that to say of oneself, "I don't care about racism", is to be racist.

Of what else could one be accused simply by expressing indifference to it? Is there an alternate equivalent?

[Pilchardman]

The Bladder/Sexwhale remarks appear to indicate that a person can be presumed to be racist if they are not anti-racist 'enough'.

I think that's a function of Multiculturalism.

I don't know whether or not Blatter is racist; I hadn't heard of him until recently. I suggest, however, that underestimating the extent of racism in football (if that's what he's done) is not sufficient evidence of his racism. Ignorance, yes. (An ignorance I admit I share). Is a handshake the way to deal with racist remarks? That depends entirely upon the remarks. I hardly want to give examples here, but there are some remarks which clearly that would not address adequately. But again, in the on-or-off world of Multiculturalism, that's too nuanced a view.

[amateur51]

I think that's a function of Multiculturalism.
But again, in the on-or-off world of Multiculturalism, that's too nuanced a view.

What do these two sentences mean? And how are they pertinent to the matter in hand?

[Pilchardman]

What do these two sentences mean? And how are they pertinent to the matter in hand?

I explained further up the thread. And central, I'd say.

[amateur51]

I explained further up the thread. And central, I'd say.

As my query suggests, manifestly not

[Pilchardman]

As my query suggests, manifestly not

Ah, Ok, so post 5 is of no help? (Nor the article linked to?)

OK, Multiculturalism is a bureaucratic policy which seeks to redefine racism as including criticism of culture and belief. It is burdened with moral relativism, and is an outgrowth of neoliberalism. In addition, it sets up a system of "community spokespeople" who are supposed to be people who speak "on behalf" of various racial or cultural groups, but who in fact tend to be what the elite sees as "people like us" from those "communities". In other words, it has a divide and rule function, which sets out to say that a working class person of colour has more in common with a wealthy barrister of colour than with a white working class person. It is a racist public policy disguised as anti racism. It equates "race" (whatever that means) with "culture", and it suggests that culture is an essential part of ones race.

[amateur51]

Ah, Ok, so post 5 is of no help? (Nor the article linked to?)

OK, Multiculturalism is a bureaucratic policy which seeks to redefine racism as including criticism of culture and belief. It is burdened with moral relativism, and is an outgrowth of neoliberalism. In addition, it sets up a system of "community spokespeople" who are supposed to be people who speak "on behalf" of various racial or cultural groups, but who in fact tend to be what the elite sees as "people like us" from those "communities". In other words, it has a divide and rule function, which sets out to say that a working class person of colour has more in common with a wealthy barrister of colour than with a white working class person. It is a racist public policy disguised as anti racism. It equates "race" (whatever that means) with "culture", and it suggests that culture is an essential part of ones race.

So you're not keen then?

[Pilchardman]

So you're not keen then?

:D

No, I'm not keen.

[MrGongGong]

Ah, Ok, so post 5 is of no help? (Nor the article linked to?)

OK, Multiculturalism is a bureaucratic policy which seeks to redefine racism as including criticism of culture and belief. It is burdened with moral relativism, and is an outgrowth of neoliberalism. In addition, it sets up a system of "community spokespeople" who are supposed to be people who speak "on behalf" of various racial or cultural groups, but who in fact tend to be what the elite sees as "people like us" from those "communities". In other words, it has a divide and rule function, which sets out to say that a working class person of colour has more in common with a wealthy barrister of colour than with a white working class person. It is a racist public policy disguised as anti racism. It equates "race" (whatever that means) with "culture", and it suggests that culture is an essential part of ones race.

Well thats one opinion
others are available
it might be currently fashionable to parrot the "multiculturalism has failed" line but if you were a musician you might say otherwise
it certainly seems to work for many of the ensembles of all genres that we listen to


I was hoping you would answer this question

What makes you think you're not a racist?

with : because I'm a fish

[Flosshilde]

I was hoping you would answer this question

What makes you think you're not a racist?

with : because I'm a fish

which would make as much sense as his argument in support of the possibility of racism being inherited.

[Flosshilde]

OK, Multiculturalism is a bureaucratic policy which seeks to redefine racism as including criticism of culture and belief. It is burdened with moral relativism, and is an outgrowth of neoliberalism. In addition, it sets up a system of "community spokespeople" who are supposed to be people who speak "on behalf" of various racial or cultural groups, but who in fact tend to be what the elite sees as "people like us" from those "communities". In other words, it has a divide and rule function, which sets out to say that a working class person of colour has more in common with a wealthy barrister of colour than with a white working class person. It is a racist public policy disguised as anti racism. It equates "race" (whatever that means) with "culture", and it suggests that culture is an essential part of ones race.

Nonsense. There is no such thing as 'Multiculturism' as a single policy. Who was it developed by? How is it being imposed? I would be interested in the evidence you have for this supposed 'Multicultural policy'.

Agreed, many organisations that fund community, voluntary, arts, sports & any other group expect them to have certain policies, ensuring that all the population they cover will benefit, but this is hardly one monolithic 'Multicultural policy'. Local councils, police forces, the NHS - any body providing public services - have policies regarding the provision of services to the whole community. But these are policies, plural, not a single policy.