Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Jefferson, Aug 8, 2018.
Is that a reference to those like the Charlie Hebdo journalists who were murdered.
But they have far more of a right then you do in my opinion of course.
It's common sense really. If I say something which I KNOW can be taken as inflammatory comments or bigoted, I don't really have much right to take offence if I'm then accused a bigot.
For example, I have very strong opinions about Israel and the actions of the Israseli people. If I present those views, I could quite easily be presented as an anti-Semite. I think the Israseli people of today should show a bit of humility and compassion towards the Palestinian people considering what happened to their grandparents/great grandparents 80 years ago. Is that too close to the mark? Not for me to decide. Is me calling a woman in a burka a letterbox too close to the mark? Not for me to decide.
You can say whatever you want in life, but you don't get to decide if it's offensive or not.
No it's not.
So if you take offence to a comment you’ve a right to simply label it whatever you deem fit, because you’ve taken offence. Sorry, I do not see the logic.
Right, so Corbyn is a racist?
‘Actions of the Israeli people’. What? You hold everyone who happens to be born in Israel collectively responsible for the actions of their government?
The definition of anti-Semitism is moreorless clear. Your position is bigoted given you’ve referred to an entire people based solely on their nationality and not their actions but it’s not anti-Semitic. Regardless of who claims otherwise.
Jesus Christ. I have never and will never dictate what people can and cannot get offended about. We’re not talking about people being ‘offended’. People get offended about all kinds of things. That’s their prerogative. You have a right to be offended, though you don’t have one NOT to be offended.
You also do not have the right to simply declare a person or a comment ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ simply because you’re offended by them or it. It’s a totally idiotic thing to suggest. These terms have set definitions which do not simply bend to the will of the offended or politically interested.
Of course. Luckily for me, I'm an atheist white male (again, I assume you are too) so not a lot can 'offend' me. If I try to put myself in the shoes of say a Muslim my age and think about some of the things they've had to put up with in life and some of the things said to them growing up, I wouldn't hold it against them if they get offended by certain comments and I certainly wouldn't tell them 'Actually, that's not bigoted so don't cry racism'.
I have absolutely no idea. I don't know the full ins and outs because frankly I've not paid attention to said story. I don't know if Jeremy Corbyn is a racist. I do think he's too stubborn and principled to ever be a leader.
You're right. I take that back and rephrase it. The Israseli's who defend the actions of the Israeli government towards the Palestinian people.
You indirectly are when you say things like this:
You are trying to dictate to me was is right or wrong. You don't have that right. I don't have that right. But I do believe in my opinion that those on the receiving end of inflammatory comments have the right to say to you 'Excuse me sir, I find that bigoted, racist and I would appreciate it if you stopped saying that'. Regardless of what you think is or isn't bigoted.
There's nothing else to debate here. It's just opinions on how to act as a human at the end of the day.
People get offended about many things. That does not enable them to make up accusations of racism and bigotry, both of which have actual definitions that do not simply bend just because someone has got offended.
Bless your bleeding little heart.
Your position is that no one needs to know the ins and outs. Actual facts are irrelevant. All that matters is petty emotion and blind accusation. Your entire argument is that racism and bigotry exists simply when someone takes offence at something that is done or said that they claim to be racist or bigoted. There is no longer a need for an actual definition of either term in your view. There’s no need for an exploration of the facts. A self-proclaimed ‘victim’ can just arbitrarily declare the presence of racism and bigotry and that declaration should not be questioned (especially by white men and those who mention, you know, actual definitions of what constitutes racism and bigotry).
All you need to know is that Jewish people took offence to actions Corbyn has taken and have subsequently declared that he’s an anti-Semite who is a threat to Jewish life in the U.K.. That’s it. There’s no need for any further exploration of the issue. There is no need for any fact checking. And there definitely shouldn’t be any questioning of their declaration of the presence of anti-Semitism. After all, just put yourself in the shoes of a Jew. Corbyn’s intention and the actual definition of what constitutes racism and bigotry are irrelevant. Indeed we don’t need them anymore. Some Jewish people said it, so it is. There’s nothing more to it. Own your logic...
And now your position is neither bigoted or racist. Regardless of anyone claiming otherwise. Because they’d be factually incorrect.
No, I’m not. You can take offence at a comment without it being racist or bigoted in nature.
No, I’m not dictating anything (I’d only be doing that if I was telling people that they cannot be offended, which is obviously a dictatorial statement). I’m stating fact. Matters of racism and bigotry are not subject to ‘opinions’, and the accusations of comments being racist are not in themselves designed to be a statement of opinion but a statement of fact.
There are specific definitions of those terms and active metrics that society uses to judge the presence of them. The opinions of those offended is not one of those metrics and only an absolute joke of a society would allow self-proclaimed victims, with supposed victimhood based only one’s propensity to take offence, to be the sole and unquestionable judge, jury and executioner when it comes to matters of bigotry.
No, there’s not. What you’re suggesting is absurd.
No no no, you asked MY opinion on it. You asked if I think Corbyn is a racist or not. I can't ascertain that without looking at the full story.
If these Jewish people feel offended and feel Jeremy Corbyn has been anti-Semitic towards them, who I am to say otherwise? I am in no position to dictate to Jews what they can or can't find anti-Semitic. It would be incredibly arrogant of me to try and do that. But would I then agree with them?
That is where you have made an assumption about me and my logic. Where have I stated that I automatically agree with anyone who feels offended? Because I haven't stated that. You've assumed that I have. You cannot tell someone what they do or do not class as offensive, bigotry, racism. Whatever you want to call it. Do I agree with them when they get upset? Not all the time. Not everything is black and white.
For example, gollywogs. To me and you they are some outdated doll that causes no harm at all. It's just a doll as far as I'm concerned. To a black person, it can be considered a highly offensive item with racist connotations and they by and large cause upset.
Do I blame a black person for getting upset about them and calling it racist? No, it's their right.
Do I agree with their thinking and why they get upset? Not necessarily, it's just a doll.
Would I tell them to stop getting upset about it? Absolutely not.
Not everything is set in stone. If a person deems something to be bigotry, then that's how they feel. Am I going to tell them they are wrong? No. Does that mean I automatically agree with what they say? No.
It was a rhetorical question. Your opinion,
especially as a white male, is irrelevant as are the ‘ins and outs’ when employing your logic. The only thing that matters is the arbitrary declaration of those who claim to be offended. Racism and bigotry is simply what they claim it to be. Definitions and facts have no bearing.
What they ‘feel’ is anti-Semitic is entirely irrelevant. The definitions of anti-semitism exist for a reason and are based on facts and evidence. Those facts are not based on the emotions and feelings or opinions and unsubstantiated claims of those who happen to be offended.
Sticking to facts and logic is not ‘arrogance’. You’re wandering into a Trumpesque ‘alternative facts’ style wonderland. Pretending that there is no definition of racism and bigotry and that those terms are hostage to the whims of the biggest crybabies in society (why should those who take offence get to dictate what is and isn’t racism whereas those Muslims who oppose the comments but have a backbone and aren’t ‘offended’ do not?) is stupidity on a Herculean scale.
It doesn’t matter if you agree or not. Your logic allows the definition of racism and bigotry to be warped outside of any factual control to fit the minds of the offended, regardless of how small, simple, ignorant or stupid their minds may be. It literally relies on a refusal to accept there being any facts based definition of racism or bigotry whatsoever. Under your logic racism or bigotry is no longer defined. It’s just whatever the offended in society say it is. A unilateral declaration by anyone who claims to be offended suffices and replaces the need for facts and evidence (the ins and outs).
You literally believe that there are potentially 60+ million different acceptable definitions of racism in this country and however many billions across the world. It’s an incredibly absurd position to take. I’m assuming you advocate the tearing up of anti-racism legislation too considering racism and bigotry is simply whatever the claimant states that it is. There’s no need for an actual facts-based definition, remember. Or does the jury just immediately declare guilt. Is there a need for a jury? It could just be the judge. Hell, we don’t need a judge to rule on guilt either. The word of the claimant is enough. Upon hearing it the judge can simply pass sentence.
Gollywogs and statements made by Boris Johnson on the appearance of people wearing particular clothing in 2018 are two very different things and are not remotely comparable.
Again, it’s a completely false comparison.
We were talking specifically about racist bigotry, not simply bigotry. Do not move the goal posts. With regards to what we’re actually discussing the notion that it’s a complete and utter free for all without any facts-based definition is one I find thoroughly silly and which I completely reject.
Nothing, and an Imam has just been interviewed on the radio saying that Boris should not apologise.
And that's the point, they are "offended" by anything that is remotely critical of their religion, not an accusation that can be directed at the other mainstream religions.
Whenever I read an article about "outrage" re gollywogs it is not black people getting upset, it's the white liberal left getting upset on their behalf.
His opinion obviously doesn’t matter as he’s not ‘offended’. However, if he was ‘offended’ then he could pass unquestioned unilateral judgment on whether the comment was racist and bigoted. Apparently...
The covering of the face (niqab/burka) is not a requirement of Islam. Even a covering of the hair (headscarf) is not required. The Qu’ran speaks only of dressing modestly.
Yet again, the most extreme interpretations and representations of Islam are held up by liberals and regressive-Leftists as being the norm while the adherents of those extreme interpretations are given carte blanche to arbitrarily declare what constitutes racism irrespective of, you know, actual facts and definitions...
Gollywogs are based on a racialised characterisation of black people from an area in which racial prejudice and supremacism were the norm. There’s simply no comparison to be had between them and Johnson’s comments about the appearance of one’s clothing. None.
I'm not comparing them, merely providing an example of how my approach works.
You are far far too quick to jump to conclusions and assumptions to debate with. I'm out.
The Imam went on to desribe this abomination of the clothing world as "A hideous tribal ninja like garment" . Good man 1
You can’t provide an example of how your illogical approach ‘works’ by using an unworkable comparison.
Racism and bigotry are prejudices that require intention to actually, you know, exist. You cannot infer intention upon a Gollywog. It’s a doll. You may infer intention upon its initial creator(s) but they’re long deceased so they don’t really matter in the current context. Boris Johnson is not a doll and the intention of his comments can be inferred. Get it?
No. You are just unable to follow your positions through to their natural conclusions and don’t like it when those conclusions are pointed out to you.
When I worked in Saudi women wearing a full face covering was unusual & not all that common (particularly around the Gulf area). The usual attire was a hijab that covered the hair & neck. In fact Saudis that I knew would often joke about women wearing such attire & ridicule their husbands for sending them out like that, The general consensus was that it was suspicious, backward & the dress of choice for fundamentalist half wits - uncool.
The Mufti (religious police) would often question them & their male guardians when out and about in the local Mall. This was probably because criminals & fugitives would often dress as women with a full face covering to order to avoid capture.
Seems the general consensus is Boris said what most people think.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion or are we only allowed to say things others want to hear. What some see as offensive is not to others.
Not an expert on the law but being critical of something or someone is not going to get anyone nicked by PC Plod.
Most people in this country are bigots though tbf.
Don't get the fuss about the burka. Oh we can't see their face. So what, how many people do you walk past a day and how many faces do you actually remember? Oh its creepy, its scary. Grow up, clowns are scary but not a burka. Have a wander round the West End, if you are offended you will probably explode, yet all they are doing is shopping, spending their husbands money on handbags and shoes.
Apologies for linking to momentum, but this is why i think it's unacceptable. It's not that it's racist per-se, it's more that it affords racists the right to use it in an aggressive way to target people
Momentum on Twitter
I know this is a serious discussion but this made me laugh.
Atkinson wrote to The Times, saying: "As a lifelong beneficiary of the freedom to make jokes about religion, I do think that Boris Johnson's joke about wearers of the burka resembling letterboxes is a pretty good one.
"All jokes about religion cause offence, so it's pointless apologising for them.
"You should really only apologise for a bad joke. On that basis, no apology is required."
Rowan Atkinson defends Boris Johnson over burka 'joke'