George Floyd (13 Viewers)

[Nick]

People make incorrect allegations of wrong doing all the time for a variety of reasons unfortunately, that's why there are procedures for investigating complaints in place in all parts of society.
You're showing no empathy with people who have potentially been racially abused which is strange considering you claim you want to educate yourself. You seem to be refusing to entertain the idea that maybe he has a case, (none of us will ever know so that part of the argument is pointless).
My position is even if the complaint is incorrect if someone has suffered a lot of racial abuse I can understand their sensitivity, you don't afford them that leeway, fair enough, but that's a very black and whiter postion of you'll forgive the pun, where comments either are racist or not and there's no room margin for error.

You only have to look at some of the slyness on this thread, not all racist remarks are a stream of obvious racist slurs.

Anyway, agree, disagree, I'm bailing out of this thread for a bit.

How do you investigate it though if somebody makes an accusation of racism to HR for example? If you have NW saying "If they say it's racism then it is" and you not allowing people to say "Is it actually racist?" then what do HR do?

It is a very dangerous precedent in this day and age to set though, surely? To go to the media making accusations when it may be that something might not be racist? Meanwhile people lose their jobs and get a witch-hunt. (Not disagreeing when things are actually racist by the way).

 

---

[Nick]

He never did call somebody a racist, though.

A good start to changing them is when people themselves, don't make the same comparisons surely?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

A good start to changing them is when people themselves, don't make the same comparisons surely?

We've been through that argument, I'm not doing it again while the sun is out, and life is... alright

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What you and others are basically saying (I think) is in racially sensitive times a black person should be 100 percent sure that the comments aimed at them have racist intent.

No one is saying in racially sensitive times, don't compare a black person to a large black wild animal. Putting the onus on the offended person rather than the person making the comment. I find that strange.

Not really what I'm saying.

I'm saying he will undoubtedly have had worse insults thrown at him. I sadly suspect they'd include things like monkey noises, bananas and even things like the n word. Surely if he wants to highlight the racism problem he's got much more effective and clearcut examples than a buffalo which may or may not have had racial undertones. It just seems a weird one to choose considering the experiences he's probably had.

 

[clint van damme]

Not really what I'm saying.

I'm saying he will undoubtedly have had worse insults thrown at him. I sadly suspect they'd include things like monkey noises, bananas and even things like the n word. Surely if he wants to highlight the racism problem he's got much more effective and clearcut examples than a buffalo which may or may not have had racial undertones. It just seems a weird one to choose considering the experiences he's probably had.

Incredible comments. That's not too bad on the racismometer Adi, stay schtum until there's a burning cross on your lawn.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

but again, unless you'v experienced racism all your life you're not really in a position to criticise, or at least say he got it wrong but I empathise with why. This isn't just about the Akinfenwa case either.
Again, you're a white person telling a black person how to react to racism or perceived racism without any criticism aimed at the initial slur, it doesn't sit well with me.

Aren't we then getting towards the problems with anti-semitism and the IHRA definition? They've suffered it so they get to decide what is and isn't anti-semitic and they've seemingly decided any criticism of Israel, its officials or its policy is anti-semitic? It's a dangerous path to lead and open to abuse.

Of course those that have suffered should be by far and away the predominant voice on the issue, but that doesn't mean them deciding if something is or isn't racist makes it the right decision.

 

[Nick]

Incredible comments. That's not too bad on the racismometer Adi, stay schtum until there's a burning cross on your lawn.

Or....

If comparing you to a buffalo is a racist or you take it as racist. Do not post pictures comparing yourself to a buffalo on social media.

Going one way would give people the free reign to just say "this is racist, that is racist" and if somebody questions it. "They have had racial abuse in the past so allow it".

That's very dangerous.

 

[clint van damme]

Or....

If comparing you to a buffalo is a racist or you take it as racist. Do not post pictures comparing yourself to a buffalo on social media.

Going one way would give people the free reign to just say "this is racist, that is racist" and if somebody questions it. "They have had racial abuse in the past so allow it".

That's very dangerous.

I've just given you an explanation of that in a DM Nick as you know I'm not putting the details on here.

 

[clint van damme]

Aren't we then getting towards the problems with anti-semitism and the IHRA definition? They've suffered it so they get to decide what is and isn't anti-semitic and they've seemingly decided any criticism of Israel, its officials or its policy is anti-semitic? It's a dangerous path to lead and open to abuse.

Of course those that have suffered should be by far and away the predominant voice on the issue, but that doesn't mean them deciding if something is or isn't racist makes it the right decision.

The controversy with the IHRA is how it tries to link critism of Israel to antisemitism, there is nothing of that nature in this issue

 

[Nick]

I've just given you an explanation of that in a DM Nick as you know I'm not putting the details on here.

No but allowing "self policing" and people deciding themselves if it's racist is a dangerous way to go. The same as not really being able to question if something is racist or not. "If they say its racist then its racist" isn't going to work.

Again, I said Gammon was racist and you said it wasn't and laughed it off instantly. Imagine if I had my avatar of loads of Pakistani people to try and make a point about sex rings? What if a black person was to call a white person a snowflake? Is that a racial case?

There has to be a balance, by no means "stay quiet and take it". Far from it, if somebody has been sexually abused it doesn't mean they can claim sexual abuse whenever they want. Obviously, come down hard on the actual abusers.

 

[skybluetony176]

Mr Dugdale,

I like you really (I apologise). Although you can be a bit baity, there's more to you than that and actually when you get down to it, we seem to have a similar world view on how to treat people face to face etc. That frightens me a bit, but it is what it is.

Tbh I don't even get what this argument's about, or why. Could I suggest you and Tony move on to the next pointless argument?

Remember, Black Skin, White Masks. It's very good.

Well NW, I’ve stayed out of it for 24hrs. How’s it worked out? Still the fault of black people?

 

[shmmeee]

Got to agree with Nick. It’s like when I was a teacher and kids would complain that I didn’t punish another kid on their word alone. You e got to have some kind of independently verifiable set of rules everyone understands or it’s just a power imbalance open to abuse.

 

[clint van damme]

No but allowing "self policing" and people deciding themselves if it's racist is a dangerous way to go. The same as not really being able to question if something is racist or not. "If they say its racist then its racist" isn't going to work.

Again, I said Gammon was racist and you said it wasn't and laughed it off instantly. Imagine if I had my avatar of loads of Pakistani people to try and make a point about sex rings? What if a black person was to call a white person a snowflake? Is that a racial case?

There has to be a balance, by no means "stay quiet and take it". Far from it, if somebody has been sexually abused it doesn't mean they can claim sexual abuse whenever they want. Obviously, come down hard on the actual abusers.

You're deciding what's not racist, what's the difference?
And those people in my avatars aren't random, they all went on TV ranting about Corbyn because they didn't think he'd drop a nuclear bomb.

If you want a Pakistani grooming gang as your avatar then crack on though it would be a bit weird.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Incredible comments. That's not too bad on the racismometer Adi, stay schtum until there's a burning cross on your lawn.

What are you talking about.

Are you saying him telling people he'd suffered abuse such as monkey noises, bananas etc wouldn't be more effective than talking about a comparison with a buffalo? Would there be a debate on here about whether those things were racist or not? Of course not - it'd be clear cut racism, there'd be condemnation of the perpatrators and sympathy for him and some uncomfortable soul searching from people who were in denial about how big and serious a problem this is and continues to be.

Someone who'd suffered sexual abuse and wanted to highlight it isn't going to make the deepest impression if they choose to talk about someone brushing past them on the train resulting in unwanted contact. It'd be 'maybe that person didn't mean to do it?" "if that's their biggest problem then it's clearly not that bad". Saying how you'd been raped however is going to get people to shut up and listen.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Got to agree with Nick. It’s like when I was a teacher and kids would complain that I didn’t punish another kid on their word alone. You e got to have some kind of independently verifiable set of rules everyone understands or it’s just a power imbalance open to abuse.

It's being painted in a very extreme black and white though (apologies for the reference!). In this case, there are obvious reasons why the animal could have racial overtones / undertones / rainbow tones. It's not like he's plucking it out of thin air.

 

[clint van damme]

Got to agree with Nick. It’s like when I was a teacher and kids would complain that I didn’t punish another kid on their word alone. You e got to have some kind of independently verifiable set of rules everyone understands or it’s just a power imbalance open to abuse.

There are.
If it's work.its the HR department if it's in the street or social media it's the police.

Otherwise who arbitrates Or do you ignore it all?

 

[Nick]

Got to agree with Nick. It’s like when I was a teacher and kids would complain that I didn’t punish another kid on their word alone. You e got to have some kind of independently verifiable set of rules everyone understands or it’s just a power imbalance open to abuse.

"Gammon is isn't racist because not every white person is a gammon, just angry ones"
"Buffalo is racist even though not every black person is fucking massive like that"
"If he says it is racist then its racist"

I have literally said that as a white person, Gammons come across as racist as it's purely based on skin colour.

 

[clint van damme]

What are you talking about.

Are you saying him telling people he'd suffered abuse such as monkey noises, bananas etc wouldn't be more effective than talking about a comparison with a buffalo? Would there be a debate on here about whether those things were racist or not? Of course not - it'd be clear cut racism, there'd be condemnation of the perpatrators and sympathy for him and some uncomfortable soul searching from people who were in denial about how big and serious a problem this is and continues to be.

Someone who'd suffered sexual abuse and wanted to highlight it isn't going to make the deepest impression if they choose to talk about someone brushing past them on the train resulting in unwanted contact. It'd be 'maybe that person didn't mean to do it?" "if that's their biggest problem then it's clearly not that bad". Saying how you'd been raped however is going to get people to shut up and listen.

So it has to be clear cut. Snidey, underhand, ambiguous then just ignore it? Incredible.

 

[Nick]

It's being painted in a very extreme black and white though (apologies for the reference!). In this case, there are obvious reasons why the animal could have racial overtones / undertones / rainbow tones. It's not like he's plucking it out of thin air.

It also could have when he plucked animals to compare himself to.

Everything can have a tone about it if you want it to enough.

 

[clint van damme]

"Gammon is isn't racist because not every white person is a gammon, just angry ones"
"Buffalo is racist even though not every black person is fucking massive like that"
"If he says it is racist then its racist"

I have literally said that as a white person, Gammons come across as racist as it's purely based on skin colour.

You and to go into some black communities Nick and educate them. I'm sure they'd welcome your expertise on the subject seen as they've been getting it all wrong.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

It also could have when he plucked animals to compare himself to.

Everything can have a tone about it if you want it to enough.

Context is king.

We've been here, done that.

Same as Atkinson and the niggers.

 

[Nick]

There are.
If it's work.its the HR department if it's in the street or social media it's the police.

Otherwise who arbitrates Or do you ignore it all?

What then happens if the HR department or the Police were to question things to find out if they were racist. Would they be treated with the same attitude? Wouldn't they just have to agree because the person is black and said it is racist?

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Oh and personally, if somebody who wasn't giving it the billy big bollocks was offended by CvD's avatar, I think he should change it.

 

[shmmeee]

It's being painted in a very extreme black and white though (apologies for the reference!). In this case, there are obvious reasons why the animal could have racial overtones / undertones / rainbow tones. It's not like he's plucking it out of thin air.

Nit getting into specifics. Just saying it’s reasonable for people to ask for a solid definition of you’re going to judge them by whether they follow it or not.

If you say “all comparisons between animals and POC are racist” then fair enough, but you can’t say “all things called racist by POC are racist”. That implies POC are somehow other as they don’t make mistakes or have biases that white people have.

Either that, or as Nick says, you’ve got to accept him saying gammon is a racist term.

 

[Nick]

Oh and personally, if somebody who wasn't giving it the billy big bollocks was offended by CvD's avatar, I think he should change it.

We have been through how Gammon is racist, the same as how snowflake could be. The same as if I said I looked like a ghost and then somebody non white said the same thing.

It doesn't count though.

Imagine the world where people can just decide that anything they want is racist, meanwhile people who are suffering from racist abuse get brushed aside / diluted with all of the bullshit like Coco Pops being racist.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The controversy with the IHRA is how it tries to link critism of Israel to antisemitism, there is nothing of that nature in this issue

The point is of self-policing. We decide what is and isn't racist and if you don't like it you're a racist.

On other political threads it's been mentioned about deregulation of the finance industry and allowing them to self-regulate. I'm not in favour of that because it opens the system to abuse and just a few doing so would be calamitous for all. It's effectively letting them decide what is and isn't fraud etc.

 

[clint van damme]

What then happens if the HR department or the Police were to question things to find out if they were racist. Would they be treated with the same attitude? Wouldn't they just have to agree because the person is black and said it is racist?

No. They look into it and they have to find compelling evidence. They don't just take one person's word over another.
I've been involved in 2 cases at work (as witness), neither was black v white but same principal.
Both got thrown.out. one correctly one incorrectly in my opinion.

 

[Nick]

No. They look into it and they have to find compelling evidence. They don't just take one person's word over another.
I've been involved in 2 cases at work (as witness), neither was black v white but same principal.
Both got thrown.out. one correctly one incorrectly in my opinion.

But going off what you and NW have said, surely a black woman who has suffered racism saying Coco Pops are racist. Can you question that? If she thinks it is then as NW says, it is.

What happens if I went to town and got into a scrap with a black lad. If I throw the first punch am I racist? Was it a racial attack? Could it be that I was just a prick or he was a prick and absolutely deserved it? If he said it was racial then how do I prove otherwise?

It's very dangerous grounds.

 

[clint van damme]

The point is of self-policing. We decide what is and isn't racist and if you don't like it you're a racist.

On other political threads it's been mentioned about deregulation of the finance industry and allowing them to self-regulate. I'm not in favour of that because it opens the system to abuse and just a few doing so would be calamitous for all. It's effectively letting them decide what is and isn't fraud etc.

We'll someone has to decide don't they?
If it's some of the posters on here nothing would be off limits!

 

[Nick]

We'll someone has to decide don't they?
If it's some of the posters on here nothing would be off limits!

Just turn it around though.

When I say I think Gammon and Snowflake is racist it gets ignored. I haven't even referred to myself as gammon or snowflake either. (Lots of others though).

Why is it OK for people to call white people gammons and Karens?

It's simple in the case of Akinfenwa, if you think being referred to as a Buffalo is offensive. Do not post pictures comparing yourself to a buffalo.

It's the equivalent of me comparing myself to a ghost and then going to HR if a non white person said the same about me.

 

[clint van damme]

But going off what you and NW have said, surely a black woman who has suffered racism saying Coco Pops are racist. Can you question that? If she thinks it is then as NW says, it is.

What happens if I went to town and got into a scrap with a black lad. If I throw the first punch am I racist? Was it a racial attack? Could it be that I was just a prick or he was a prick and absolutely deserved it? If he said it was racial then how do I prove otherwise?

It's very dangerous grounds.

Of course someone can say coco pops is racist but I don't think it would be taken seriously would it?

And it wouldn't be decided by one person would it. Silly example so.its not dangerous ground because the example is nonsense.

Same as your fight example, if you use derogatory racist slurs and there's witnesses then.it racist.
If you don't and there's witnesses then.its not. I can't believe I have to explain that it's straight forward.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

But going off what you and NW have said, surely a black woman who has suffered racism saying Coco Pops are racist. Can you question that? If she thinks it is then as NW says, it is.

What happens if I went to town and got into a scrap with a black lad. If I throw the first punch am I racist? Was it a racial attack? Could it be that I was just a prick or he was a prick and absolutely deserved it? If he said it was racial then how do I prove otherwise?

It's very dangerous grounds.

If I was a black man and was called a coco pop monkey then absolutely, I'd think you were a racist c**t!

 

[Nick]

Of course someone can say coco pops is racist but I don't think it would be taken seriously would it?

And it wouldn't be decided by one person would it. Silly example so.its not dangerous ground because the example is nonsense.

Same as your fight example, if you use derogatory racist slurs and there's witnesses then.it racist.
If you don't and there's witnesses then.its not. I can't believe I have to explain that it's straight forward.

So you have to use a racist slur for it to be a race attack otherwise it isn't?

I don't think it's as straight forward as that is it?

It is dangerous ground because at what point does a copper worry about whether to stop somebody who is black in case there is a complaint, social media shitstorm and they get in trouble for it? It gets very messy if people then want to start taking the piss.

 

[Nick]

If I was a black man and was called a coco pop monkey then absolutely, I'd think you were a racist c**t!

Nobody was called that.

If a black person calls a white person a Gammon or Karen, is that racist?

 

[clint van damme]

So you have to use a racist slur for it to be a race attack otherwise it isn't?

I don't think it's as straight forward as that is it?

No. But there's a burden of proof to.prove it's a racist attack. That would be strong evidence.
In the absence of racist language it would be difficult to prove unless the perpetrator had a racist or far right back ground.