You can't say that, it's racist

[scenario8]

IanCormac said:

Colonial said:

It does for our indigenous population

Why have you winked. Did you not understand what he was trying to say or something?

Colonial was probably nodding towards the situation in Australia - where he lives. The situation is interesting there.

[Johnnytheboy]

Pesty said:

Kawasicki said:

This whole thing has gone too far. Say I had a thing for ladies with dark skin, is that racist?

No that's fine

Its only racist to say you don't find dark skin attractive.

Is it? Even if it's something you made no choice about?

If I said I had chosen not to consider black women as potential mates, that would be racist. If I said I found that I rarely fancied black women through no conscious decision process, is that racist?

[Pesty]

Of course it is

I was accused of being racist by asking for Black coffee once.

You havn't met many social workers or millitant minorities have you

Edited by Pesty on Tuesday 3rd July 20:55

[Johnnytheboy]

Am I allowed to say "No, thank goodness"?

[Pesty]

Johnnytheboy said:

Am I allowed to say "No, thank goodness"?

Which of these statements is racist

the last 10 100m Olypic winners were black.

The last 10 chess masters were white.

Try saying the last one in totenham and see how far you get

[Starfighter]

Pesty said:

Which of these statements is racist

the last 10 100m Olypic winners were black.

The last 10 chess masters were white.

Try saying the last one in totenham and see how far you get

Neither is racist. Both are statements of fact (assuming them to be correct).

[StottyZr]

Starfighter said:

Pesty said:

Which of these statements is racist

the last 10 100m Olypic winners were black.

The last 10 chess masters were white.

Try saying the last one in totenham and see how far you get

Neither is racist. Both are statements of fact (assuming them to be correct).

Oddly enough I see an implied racism in the chess players comments (even if its not). Bit of a psychological test going on here

[Jasandjules]

Starfighter said:

Neither is racist. Both are statements of fact (assuming them to be correct).

Facts no longer count. For example IF it is a fact that persons of a certain colour commit certain crimes such as blowing things up or gun crime, it is still considered racist to say so.

[zcacogp]

Jasandjules said:

Facts no longer count.

And that, chaps, is the heart of the problem.

Political correctness now trumps correctness, and truth is the casualty.


Oli.

[Genelec]

Jasandjules said:

Facts no longer count. For example IF it is a fact that persons of a certain colour commit certain crimes such as blowing things up or gun crime, it is still considered racist to say so.

But that's not a fact? What exactly is the point here? Are you trying to say that everyone who is from a certain country is a terrorist?

If I say "The terrorist was from X country" then that is not racist. It would be a fact

If I say "People from x country are terrorists" That would not be a fact, and would thus be racist. (Unless all people from said country WERE actually terrorists.)

I could equally say that all people who post on pistonheads are racist 's. However that would not be true either. Only SOME are racist 's.

[Negative Creep]

Genelec said:

Jasandjules said:

Facts no longer count. For example IF it is a fact that persons of a certain colour commit certain crimes such as blowing things up or gun crime, it is still considered racist to say so.

But that's not a fact? What exactly is the point here? Are you trying to say that everyone who is from a certain country is a terrorist?

If I say "The terrorist was from X country" then that is not racist. It would be a fact

If I say "People from x country are terrorists" That would not be a fact, and would thus be racist. (Unless all people from said country WERE actually terrorists.)

I could equally say that all people who post on pistonheads are racist 's. However that would not be true either. Only SOME are racist 's.

Whay he's saying is that even if it's statistically proven that more black people commit gun crimes (I'm not saying they do btw, just using it as an example) then people would cry racism. If you said more white people commit insurance fraud (again, I'm not claiming this to be true) no one would bat an eyelid

[MilnerR]

Why would you STATE a preference? Isn't the normal way of doing anything like this is to advertise it openly and then discriminate at the interview/choice stage? That certainly how it's worked in every company I've ever worked for with regards job advertisments!

[Ozzie Osmond]

Jasandjules said:

Facts no longer count. For example IF it is a fact that persons of a certain colour commit certain crimes such as blowing things up or gun crime, it is still considered racist to say so.

Hmmm, caution is needed. For instance,

• I believe it is a fact UK prisons contain a higher proportion of dark-skinned people than the overall population of the country.

• I believe it is a fact UK prisons contain a higher proportion of poorly educated people than the overall population of the country.

So is it dark-skinned people who commit more crime or is it poorly educated people? This is crucial because if (a) poorly educated people are the problem then society can do something about it by improving education, but if (b) dark-skinned people are the problem there's NOTHING society can do about it except adopt racist policies. And I'm not aware of any studies which show one racial group to be more criminally inclined than another.

[Negative Creep]

An upcoming series just advertised on BB3 - is football racist. Well that Panorama special really was a highly accurate success wasn't it?

[rpguk]

Jasandjules said:

Facts no longer count. For example IF it is a fact that persons of a certain colour commit certain crimes such as blowing things up or gun crime, it is still considered racist to say so.

What utter tripe. The met police even have 'Trident' a unit dealing specifically with gun crime in black communities.

There are also targeted campaigns against Islamic terrorism.

No one denies there are issues to be dealt with here and they are done so robustly.

However that doesn't mean that you can just go treating all blacks of carrying guns or all Muslims of being terrorists. Not just for so called 'PC reasons' but because it's quite simply counter productive and only drives divisons which encourage such problems.

[FarleyRusk]

Political Correctness has been invented to stop people telling the truth. Remember the case of the american Nobel prize winning professpr who was uninvited from speaking at universities in the uk because he told the truth that black IQs are lower than white. That's offensive of course because the definition of offensive is if anyone finds it offensive then it is so. Thats why 5 complaints out of 5 million viewers of top gear can be found to be justified instead of just being tokd to FRO.

[mrmr96]

FarleyRusk said:

Political Correctness has been invented to stop people telling the truth. Remember the case of the american Nobel prize winning professpr who was uninvited from speaking at universities in the uk because he told the truth that black IQs are lower than white. That's offensive of course because the definition of offensive is if anyone finds it offensive then it is so. Thats why 5 complaints out of 5 million viewers of top gear can be found to be justified instead of just being tokd to FRO.

I think we should change the definition of "offensive" to mean either:
i) when offence was intended,
OR
ii) when a reasonable person would find it offensive

Rather than the current
when any single person takes offence. (because they might be unrepresentative of a reasonable person.)

[Jasandjules]

Genelec said:

But that's not a fact? What exactly is the point here? Are you trying to say that everyone who is from a certain country is a terrorist?

Firstly, thank you for proving my point so efficiently.

Secondly, at what point in my post did you read country?

[MX7]

MilnerR said:

Why would you STATE a preference? Isn't the normal way of doing anything like this is to advertise it openly and then discriminate at the interview/choice stage? That certainly how it's worked in every company I've ever worked for with regards job advertisments!

Don't you think it would be more transparent and honest if people were allowed to express a preference, instead of having to go through the performance of meeting people who have zero chance of being selected, and then making polite excuses?

[MilnerR]

MX7 said:

Don't you think it would be more transparent and honest if people were allowed to express a preference, instead of having to go through the performance of meeting people who have zero chance of being selected, and then making polite excuses?

Completely agree, but given the current climate that is not what happens. My point probably alluded to the fact that discrimiation is as rife as ever but is hidden behind legislation. The end result is the same but there is the illusion of fairness, which is probably a fairly good discription of political correctness.