Gutter Press gushes forth at

[JohnD]

But I'm a rejoiner.

Bookies seem optimistic. have you placed your bet?

I'd have thought it would take years.

 

[Dangee]

G Bear in mind, I can’t see ignored content.
I was commenting on the interview. Absolutely nothing to do with Boris whatsoever.

 

[Bodd]

JLS are Back.

 

[Dangee]

Looking their age & missing some hair!

 

[Bodd]

My point is weaponising the response to racism through labelling everything woke.

Acceptance by whom? Everyone? Racism will be misused as is the response to it. The issue is that its a very nuanced subject.



Is this then an example of racism? or is he being sensitive.

Can you not tell the difference for what is racist and what is not?


Clear racism in the video. We don't know if the racists were
Black.
White English
Other English
Eastern European.
But it was clear.

You and others have problem in that if someone even says the word Black then it's racist.

 

[transam]

The Swiss have just had a referendum again

and have a majority for banning
Face coverings

Predominantly aimed at the Islamic community ?

Seems that Switzerland are full of racists ????? May be ???

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

..this will all end in tears, just wait and see.

It already has, Tears Morgan has left GMB.

 

[Dangee]

Probably not the best time to ban face coverings tbh

 

[Dangee]

How could it be enforced.
“Take your hijab off!!! Now pay this fine for not wearing a mask!!”

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Because although the article is well written it is utterly rediculous and is trying to redefine racism to suit their own narrative.

The article explains that they see racism as a structural inequality in society. That is a reasonable opinion to hold because they go on to define racial prejudice in more precise terms, and different to racism.

The article states only whites can be racist as they are the dominant race in the west (because whites are native)

The reason for the definition is not because whites are native. That is your misunderstanding of their argument. For starters, according to your misunderstood interpretation, Aborigines only, could be racist in Australia, Native Indians only, could be racist in USA, Indigenous people of South America only, could be racist in South America, etc.. Do you understand how your interpretation of their argument is illogical?
The reason why only white people can be racist is because only white people believe in their superiority, and only white people have created an unequal society and because only white people can be in a position to perpetuate that unequal society.

But that is not the definition of racism, people of colour can also be racist against white people and there are many that are.

As the author explained, they see the bias towards white people, by BAME as racial prejudice. They are not denying the existence of such racial prejudice, they are openly acknowledging its existence.
But it can't be racism because the BAME people are not in a position to establish a BAME superior society that structurally disadvantages white people.
So the author draws a distinction between 'racism' and 'racial prejudice'.

I respectfully suggest that you re-read the article with my explanations in mind.

 

[transam]

How could it be enforced.
“Take your hijab off!!! Now pay this fine for not wearing a mask!!”

dunno tbh

afaik the French had some similar related law passed a while back which was aimed predominantly
At Muslims ??? Maybe ?

No surprise tbh

that’s the French for you
Himmy should take it up with the scoundrels

 

[Bodd]

I went up to a woman with a hijab in Sainsburys and said look at that **** not wearing a mask.

 

[Bodd]

How times have changed

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I am not saying that racism never happens, of course it does.

Then when it happens, what do you suggest it is called, because you appear to object to it being called racism unless you have approved its use?

What I am saying is that there are grey areas as to whether something is racist or not. But the default reaction at the moment is to accept it as racist without challenge and accuse anyone that does challenge it of being racist and part of the problem. Exactly as you’ve just done to me.

What you appear to be saying is "it's not racism unless you accept it as such".
Do you not think others have as much right to judge sentiments as you?

By shutting down the dialogue you allow people to weaponise marginal or non existent racism and that diminishes the seriousness of genuine racism.

You are suggesting that racism is non-existent or of little consequence. Don't you think the victims of racism are in a better position than you to judge the seriousness of it.
Do you make the same argument for rape?
How does your argument look when used in a different scenario, "you allow people to weaponise marginal or non existent rape and that diminishes the seriousness of genuine rape."
Have you ever made that argument? If not why not?
How about "you allow people to weaponise marginal or non existent theft and that diminishes the seriousness of genuine theft".
Have you ever made that argument? If not why not?
Why do you only make that argument for racism?

 

[Dangee]

Lol