The Fantastic Mr Fox

[SirGalahad]

But that's not what was said. What was said was to call racism out when justified, but don't demean it by labelling anything one disagrees with as racism.

The problem with that line of thinking is that people are upset when someone claims racism however they do not provide any justifcation as to why, other than well I think it's not, it's opinions. Which goes back to my opening line - the irony of being upset at people being upset.

It may well not be racims but you need something more than just well I think it isn't.

 

[Bodd]

Who started this thread: Tory voter

I've not always been a tory voter.... You on the other hand claim to have been

 

[Brigadier]

It may well not be racims but you need something more than just well I think it isn't.

No , you don't; the onus is on the claimant (of racism, in this case), to prove their claim.
Which you already knew...

The level of idiocy. You made the claim so provide proof. Not hard.

If you use your logic that means any claim is valid unless someone takes time to disprove it - just how Science and normal people work. Not.

Using your logic then I wil call you a p edo. It's upto you to prove a negative.

 

[SirGalahad]

No , you don't; the onus is on the claimant (of racism, in this case), to prove their claim.
Which you already knew...

If you follow the discussion Boyle was cut off before she could respond and Bruce ended with the line “I’m not taking a view either way, I just want to add in that Priti Patel, the home secretary, also took the view that it wasn’t racism. I’m not making a judgement on that.”

So does Bruce use Patel as “evidence” to dispute Boyle’s position. Does Patel’s identity as a woman of colour play a part here? So Bruce has used it as a form of authenticity and personal testimony, but failed to let Boyle respond. If Patel testimony is acceptable why not Buckleys?

So Fox can dismiss it as not being racist but without having Buckley respond and then having her view contrasted against another person then why is one testimony acceptable and another not?

 

[Notch7]

I've not always been a tory voter.... You on the other hand claim to have been

I wouldnt class this government as Tories, best we just call them brexit liars

sometimes you voted UKIP -more gammon less blue

 

[Notch7]

No , you don't; the onus is on the claimant (of racism, in this case), to prove their claim.
Which you already knew...

thats silly

lets say you believe Meghan reason for leaving had nothing to with racism -the onus is then on you to prove it.

works both ways

 

[Brigadier]

So Fox can dismiss it as not being racist but without having Buckley respond.......

That's a different point altogether, and one that I specifically didn't support : I specifically said that the claimant should back up their claim.

The rest of your post was just more repetition of your previous point (with which I'd already disagreed) ; the onus is not on Fox to prove a negative (regardless of Patel's involvement which incidentally, also fits into the category of "not having to prove a negative"). It is for the claimant to justify their claim of racism.


Apologies for any poor grammar ; I'm typing this on my phone, while waiting for the kettle to boil and having to endure inane workplace chatter

 

[Bodd]

I wouldnt class this government as Tories, best we just call them brexit liars

sometimes you voted UKIP -more gammon less blue

Sometimes Labour.... Less gammon.... More luncheon meat

 

[SirGalahad]

What was said was to call racism out when justified, but don't demean it by labelling anything one disagrees with as racism.

Your premise is that if someone labels something as racist by default it must be misuse of the term - "anything anyone disagrees" - a tool to control the narrative. You are arguing Fox point that Buckley used the term incorrectly. By not asking Buckley to justify her point but by simply coming from a position that by default the term is overused and misused. If it is misused and overused then you must be able also to support your default position.

It is for the claimant to justify their claim of racism.

If Fox had said I don't think it's racist, justify it, he would be correct in asking for evidence. However when he went off on saying the word is overused then he has to support that claim himself.

 

[SirGalahad]

That's a different point altogether, and one that I specifically didn't support : I specifically said that the claimant should back up their claim.

The rest of your post was just more repetition of your previous point (with which I'd already disagreed) ; the onus is not on Fox to prove a negative (regardless of Patel's involvement which incidentally, also fits into the category of "not having to prove a negative"). It is for the claimant to justify their claim of racism.


Apologies for any poor grammar ; I'm typing this on my phone, while waiting for the kettle to boil and having to endure inane workplace chatter

Tea at 11am?

 

[Brigadier]

thats silly

lets say you believe Meghan reason for leaving had nothing to with racism -the onus is then on you to prove it.

works both ways

No it doesn't, because of, among other things, the "nuclear" impact of a claim of racism; it is soooo damaging, that it shouldn't be thrown around without challenge, and good cause.
That, and the general principle of innocence before guilt.


Here's a thought experiment on the logic of your statement, "lets say you believe Meghan reason for leaving had nothing to with racism -the onus is then on you to prove it."


There are two initial options: that "the reason was racist", or that it wasn't.

Option one; that the reason was racist.

I believe that it isn't. I am therefore incorrect in my belief.
I can't possibly be able to prove one way or another, as I am not necessarily in possession of any of the facts that led the claimant to come to their conclusion.

Ergo, the claimant may / must prove that the claim is true, for it to have full credibility.

(If evidence is presented to me to support the claim - emails from the Editor of the DM, for example, about driving "the black b!tch out", coming to light - it would refute my assertion, and would shred my credibility if I did not change my position).


Option two; that the reason wasn't racist.

I believe that it isn't. I am therefore correct in my belief.
I still can't possibly be able to prove one way or another, as I am not necessarily in possession of any of the facts that led the claimant to come to their conclusion.

Ergo, the claimant may / must prove that the claim is true, for it to have full credibility. But they can't, because it isn't (in this example).

Therefore, although I am completely correct in my position, it is impossible for me to prove that I am. Which refutes your point entirely.

 

[Brigadier]

Tea at 11am?

We like to maintain standards

 

[Notch7]

Which refutes your point entirely

No it does not, I am saying a claimant could have made either of these claims:

"Meghan did not leave because of racism"

"Meghan did leave because of racism"

All you are doing is saying the burden of proof is on the person that spoke first.

You for instance may have thought all along that racism was not the reason, if you had spoken out first then the burden would be on you to prove.

 

[EFLImpudence]

How small a proportion of African ancestry is required before a person is not black?

Is Archie black?

 

[Notch7]

How small a proportion of African ancestry is required before a person is not black?

Is Archie black?

I thought the human race decsended from black people

We are all black