RamuelLJackson Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 On 17/10/2016 at 13:53, Dethorn said: This is where I get confused. I am a big fat bald bearded oldish straight white bloke - plenty of material it is consider banter to have a go at. Most other things, sex, sexual preference, race, religion, disability etc. are not. In fact in my opinion most of these can be seen to be the subject of positive discrimination. Can someone please explain to me why it is OK to shout banter at an old bald bloke but not an old gay bloke or an old asian guy. I do not care either way - I would just like consistency so I can easily understand it. Generally if the trait being picked on is one that tends to be a source of systemic discrimination, bullying, oppression or marginalisation then that's where the line is drawn. You'd be right to say picking on someone for being fat isn't on, as people are discriminated against for being fat. Picking on someone for being white could be discrimination individually but not systemically, so it's not on the same level as picking on someone for being black, asian etc. Personally I still don't think we should do it, but it carries less oppressive cultural weight. Bald people are less clearly systemically oppressed but I'd say it comes under ageism and body shaming so I'd definitely advise avoiding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 26 minutes ago, RamuelLJackson said: Generally if the trait being picked on is one that tends to be a source of systemic discrimination, bullying, oppression or marginalisation then that's where the line is drawn. You'd be right to say picking on someone for being fat isn't on, as people are discriminated against for being fat. Picking on someone for being white could be discrimination individually but not systemically, so it's not on the same level as picking on someone for being black, asian etc. Personally I still don't think we should do it, but it carries less oppressive cultural weight. Bald people are less clearly systemically oppressed but I'd say it comes under ageism and body shaming so I'd definitely advise avoiding it. That's an awful lot of **** you've managed to cram into one post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamuelLJackson Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Sorry, I know that's normally your specialty. I'll try not to tread on your toes; don't want a demarcation dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, RamuelLJackson said: Sorry, I know that's normally your specialty. I'll try not to tread on your toes; don't want a demarcation dispute. I talk my own special brand of nonsense. I'll leave the cultural Marxism to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamuelLJackson Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Seeking to gain an understanding of systems of oppression isn't "cultural marxism", whatever that is. Ignoring the impact of how systems buttress individual behaviours is like seeing a bully punching a quiet little kid and then treating the little kid's eventual retaliation as being as bad as the bullying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted October 18, 2016 Share Posted October 18, 2016 Applying Marxist notions of the oppressor and the oppressed to social aspects such as race. But who is being oppressed in this country? This isn't South Africa. If an individual black or Asian person is racist towards a white person they aren't being systemically anything. They are just being individually racist and racism or similar bigotry is just as bad no matter who does it or who is on the receiving end. Systemic racism exists but a black or Asian person recieving racist abuse isn't systemic racism. It's just racism. Also, systemic racism can happen to white people. The institution of the BBC depriving a man of his job because he is a white man as per their policy is institutionally racist against whites and institutionally sexist against men. But I wouldn't say white men are being oppressed, but I'm expected to entertain the idea that black people are oppressed. They're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertRam Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 15 hours ago, Highgate said: To be fair....we've all done that after a night out. Or is that just me? So have I mate, but that was many years ago and I have now seen the error of my ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertRam Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 In fact, I have said and done things, that I now regret, and hate to admit, so have certainly changed over the years, when we trivialize hate, or turn it into jokes or banter, then we create a situation (in younger minds) where we are not sure if this is right or wrong, if everyone thinks its a laugh it cant be that bad, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertRam Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 On 10/17/2016 at 05:53, Dethorn said: This is where I get confused. I am a big fat bald bearded oldish straight white bloke - plenty of material it is consider banter to have a go at. Most other things, sex, sexual preference, race, religion, disability etc. are not. In fact in my opinion most of these can be seen to be the subject of positive discrimination. Can someone please explain to me why it is OK to shout banter at an old bald bloke but not an old gay bloke or an old asian guy. I do not care either way - I would just like consistency so I can easily understand it. The answer is that its not ok to shout banter at anyone, this should be a no brainer, it exists, cause we have a load of w*****s on here, who are unable to understand the concept of their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Derby fans embarrassing last night singing about other Derby fans, trying to shame them into singing along with embarrassing and crap songs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Le Mesmer Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 Didn't hear this but I must admit, the range of songs for Derby IMO compared to some other clubs I've had the pleasure of following are extremely limited although i'm not criticising as i'm in the NS and in there we don't sing for some reason. When I go to my first away game though i'll add one more to the vocal outpouring. It's a shame as there is a world of new material out there that is being left untouched. Instead some opt to just simply go with "you're effin ****, you're effin ****, you're effin ****!" which I have to admit doesn't do anyone any favours. Love seeing and hearing the SS bounce and sing however when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said: Derby fans embarrassing last night singing about other Derby fans, trying to shame them into singing along with embarrassing and crap songs! I'm defending people singing the Saville song against the Mary Whitehouses on this forum but that's just as bad. What were they singing/saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamsPolls Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Mostyn6 said: Derby fans embarrassing last night singing about other Derby fans, trying to shame them into singing along with embarrassing and crap songs! What was said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 10 minutes ago, StringerBell said: I'm defending people singing the Saville song against the Mary Whitehouses on this forum but that's just as bad. What were they singing/saying? 4 minutes ago, RamsPolls said: What was said? they just tried to shame people into singing. I recall some snidey song about moving from the East stand to sing. Something about sing ya bastads! Lots of mouthy nobs shouting about f off back to the East stand. Some songs about us not singing. Just cringeworthy divisive stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamuelLJackson Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 20 hours ago, StringerBell said: Applying Marxist notions of the oppressor and the oppressed to social aspects such as race. But who is being oppressed in this country? This isn't South Africa. If an individual black or Asian person is racist towards a white person they aren't being systemically anything. They are just being individually racist and racism or similar bigotry is just as bad no matter who does it or who is on the receiving end. Systemic racism exists but a black or Asian person recieving racist abuse isn't systemic racism. It's just racism. Also, systemic racism can happen to white people. The institution of the BBC depriving a man of his job because he is a white man as per their policy is institutionally racist against whites and institutionally sexist against men. But I wouldn't say white men are being oppressed, but I'm expected to entertain the idea that black people are oppressed. They're not. A lot to unpick here. Not sure you're ready for the level of discussion you're opening up, or whether this thread is really the place for it. It's not a Marxist notion, it's social sciences 101 really, and many people are being oppressed on various levels and axes in this country. Let's not imagine just because we don't have the KKK hanging people from trees that people of colour aren't getting a worse deal regarding race than white people do. There are all sorts of intersecting axes of oppression but it might help initially to find one on which you are clearly not privileged as it might help you grasp this. So let's say you're relatively poor (I don't know if you are but you're clearly very white and I don't want to put you in an awkward situation regarding your sexuality, gender etc). You lack economic privilege, which means - everything else being equal - you suffer an amount of marginalisation. In other words your life is harder than if you had that wealth privilege. Doesn't mean you cant succeed but if you do it'll come only via hard work and some good fortune. Things will always be that bit easier money-wise for those with rich parents. Easier to get a good education. Easier to get a good job, a mortgage etc. In this sense you experience oppression on the wealth axis. You might have worse health as a result, more stress, work longer hours and so on. Similar things happen on lots of other axes. Gender and sexuality I've mentioned, but also class (which can be linked with wealth), being able bodied versus having a disability, age and various others. The BBC isn't racist against white people. First of all the vast majority of people working for the BBC are white (I should know, I've worked for them), and secondly white people are on the privileged end of the race axis and so any discrimination against them isn't racist. Racism requires more than individual prejudice or even discrimination - it also requires systemic inequality. White people don't suffer from systemic inequality regarding race (in fact they benefit from it), and any slight efforts to promote diversity made by the BBC et al are just scraping the surface of breaking down that systemic inequality. Having your privilege slightly reduced isn't the same as suffering racism - just as laws which give poor people more money in their pocket at the expense of the super rich aren't oppressing those elites. The BBC also isn't sexist against men - I am one, I worked for them, I'm very certain of this. Men are doing just great out of the BBC. And anyway as I've explained above the BBC couldn't be sexist against men. It could be biased, prejudiced and discriminate against us but as we aren't a group on the wrong end of that gender axis - there isn't systemic bias against us - it's nonsensical to say it would be sexist. As for people of colour receiving race-based abuse, what they are getting is individual prejudice and bigotry buttressed by racist systemic inequality. These are the elements which make up racism. I guess from your remarks here and elsewhere that you incline towards analysing the world on an individual level but you're missing a trick if you don't see and acknowledge bigger structural systems and the roles they play within marginalisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 8 minutes ago, RamuelLJackson said: A lot to unpick here. Not sure you're ready for the level of discussion you're opening up, or whether this thread is really the place for it. It's not a Marxist notion, it's social sciences 101 really, and many people are being oppressed on various levels and axes in this country. Let's not imagine just because we don't have the KKK hanging people from trees that people of colour aren't getting a worse deal regarding race than white people do. There are all sorts of intersecting axes of oppression but it might help initially to find one on which you are clearly not privileged as it might help you grasp this. So let's say you're relatively poor (I don't know if you are but you're clearly very white and I don't want to put you in an awkward situation regarding your sexuality, gender etc). You lack economic privilege, which means - everything else being equal - you suffer an amount of marginalisation. In other words your life is harder than if you had that wealth privilege. Doesn't mean you cant succeed but if you do it'll come only via hard work and some good fortune. Things will always be that bit easier money-wise for those with rich parents. Easier to get a good education. Easier to get a good job, a mortgage etc. In this sense you experience oppression on the wealth axis. You might have worse health as a result, more stress, work longer hours and so on. Similar things happen on lots of other axes. Gender and sexuality I've mentioned, but also class (which can be linked with wealth), being able bodied versus having a disability, age and various others. The BBC isn't racist against white people. First of all the vast majority of people working for the BBC are white (I should know, I've worked for them), and secondly white people are on the privileged end of the race axis and so any discrimination against them isn't racist. Racism requires more than individual prejudice or even discrimination - it also requires systemic inequality. White people don't suffer from systemic inequality regarding race (in fact they benefit from it), and any slight efforts to promote diversity made by the BBC et al are just scraping the surface of breaking down that systemic inequality. Having your privilege slightly reduced isn't the same as suffering racism - just as laws which give poor people more money in their pocket at the expense of the super rich aren't oppressing those elites. The BBC also isn't sexist against men - I am one, I worked for them, I'm very certain of this. Men are doing just great out of the BBC. And anyway as I've explained above the BBC couldn't be sexist against men. It could be biased, prejudiced and discriminate against us but as we aren't a group on the wrong end of that gender axis - there isn't systemic bias against us - it's nonsensical to say it would be sexist. As for people of colour receiving race-based abuse, what they are getting is individual prejudice and bigotry buttressed by racist systemic inequality. These are the elements which make up racism. I guess from your remarks here and elsewhere that you incline towards analysing the world on an individual level but you're missing a trick if you don't see and acknowledge bigger structural systems and the roles they play within marginalisation. Choon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 30 minutes ago, RamuelLJackson said: A lot to unpick here. Not sure you're ready for the level of discussion you're opening up, or whether this thread is really the place for it. It's not a Marxist notion, it's social sciences 101 really, and many people are being oppressed on various levels and axes in this country. Let's not imagine just because we don't have the KKK hanging people from trees that people of colour aren't getting a worse deal regarding race than white people do. There are all sorts of intersecting axes of oppression but it might help initially to find one on which you are clearly not privileged as it might help you grasp this. So let's say you're relatively poor (I don't know if you are but you're clearly very white and I don't want to put you in an awkward situation regarding your sexuality, gender etc). You lack economic privilege, which means - everything else being equal - you suffer an amount of marginalisation. In other words your life is harder than if you had that wealth privilege. Doesn't mean you cant succeed but if you do it'll come only via hard work and some good fortune. Things will always be that bit easier money-wise for those with rich parents. Easier to get a good education. Easier to get a good job, a mortgage etc. In this sense you experience oppression on the wealth axis. You might have worse health as a result, more stress, work longer hours and so on. Similar things happen on lots of other axes. Gender and sexuality I've mentioned, but also class (which can be linked with wealth), being able bodied versus having a disability, age and various others. The BBC isn't racist against white people. First of all the vast majority of people working for the BBC are white (I should know, I've worked for them), and secondly white people are on the privileged end of the race axis and so any discrimination against them isn't racist. Racism requires more than individual prejudice or even discrimination - it also requires systemic inequality. White people don't suffer from systemic inequality regarding race (in fact they benefit from it), and any slight efforts to promote diversity made by the BBC et al are just scraping the surface of breaking down that systemic inequality. Having your privilege slightly reduced isn't the same as suffering racism - just as laws which give poor people more money in their pocket at the expense of the super rich aren't oppressing those elites. The BBC also isn't sexist against men - I am one, I worked for them, I'm very certain of this. Men are doing just great out of the BBC. And anyway as I've explained above the BBC couldn't be sexist against men. It could be biased, prejudiced and discriminate against us but as we aren't a group on the wrong end of that gender axis - there isn't systemic bias against us - it's nonsensical to say it would be sexist. As for people of colour receiving race-based abuse, what they are getting is individual prejudice and bigotry buttressed by racist systemic inequality. These are the elements which make up racism. I guess from your remarks here and elsewhere that you incline towards analysing the world on an individual level but you're missing a trick if you don't see and acknowledge bigger structural systems and the roles they play within marginalisation. I'd say class if the biggest signifier of 'oppression' if that's what you want to call it, but I see no evidence of the oppression of specific races. We do not live in a white supremacy, and we would have to do so if non-whites were oppressed. Social sciences 101. I've had to study sociology at uni. Social sciences and the way they're taught is dripping in Marxism (and feminism). It is irrelevant if many of the BBC are white. They racially discriminated against a white man therefore they are racist. Your definition of race is all wrong. Racism requires systemic inequality? No it doesn't. That would be systemic racism which is different to racism. Discrimination against white people isn't racist? If they're being discriminated against specifically because they are white then yes it is. Stop redefining words or a conversation can't take place. Racism does not need power + prejudice if that's what you believe. Power is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Ram Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 39 minutes ago, StringerBell said: I'd say class if the biggest signifier of 'oppression' if that's what you want to call it, but I see no evidence of the oppression of specific races. We do not live in a white supremacy, and we would have to do so if non-whites were oppressed. Social sciences 101. I've had to study sociology at uni. Social sciences and the way they're taught is dripping in Marxism (and feminism). It is irrelevant if many of the BBC are white. They racially discriminated against a white man therefore they are racist. Your definition of race is all wrong. Racism requires systemic inequality? No it doesn't. That would be systemic racism which is different to racism. Discrimination against white people isn't racist? If they're being discriminated against specifically because they are white then yes it is. Stop redefining words or a conversation can't take place. Racism does not need power + prejudice if that's what you believe. Power is irrelevant. Yeah but you missed the point... which end of the axis are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamuelLJackson Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 41 minutes ago, StringerBell said: I'd say class if the biggest signifier of 'oppression' if that's what you want to call it, but I see no evidence of the oppression of specific races. We do not live in a white supremacy, and we would have to do so if non-whites were oppressed. Social sciences 101. I've had to study sociology at uni. Social sciences and the way they're taught is dripping in Marxism (and feminism). It is irrelevant if many of the BBC are white. They racially discriminated against a white man therefore they are racist. Your definition of race is all wrong. Racism requires systemic inequality? No it doesn't. That would be systemic racism which is different to racism. Discrimination against white people isn't racist? If they're being discriminated against specifically because they are white then yes it is. Stop redefining words or a conversation can't take place. Racism does not need power + prejudice if that's what you believe. Power is irrelevant. So you do see classism and I'm guessing you'd say you're a person who doesn't benefit from class privilege. And you are a white man who doesn't think people of colour and women experience marginalisation. I think you can learn a lot about the world by listening to more people who are not like you. We can all see the **** aimed at us; it can be harder to see the **** thrown at people not like us (by people like us). And I'm not redefining anything. I'm using very standard definitions which you should be familiar with if you paid attention in those sociology classes you had to take. And power is always relevant, that's kind of the point. Now I'm aware I've droned on enough about this stuff and I'm going to concentrate on footie for a while. Do feel free to reply but I'm probably not going to engage any more with this part of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringerBell Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 7 minutes ago, RamuelLJackson said: So you do see classism and I'm guessing you'd say you're a person who doesn't benefit from class privilege. And you are a white man who doesn't think people of colour and women experience marginalisation. I think you can learn a lot about the world by listening to more people who are not like you. We can all see the **** aimed at us; it can be harder to see the **** thrown at people not like us (by people like us). And I'm not redefining anything. I'm using very standard definitions which you should be familiar with if you paid attention in those sociology classes you had to take. And power is always relevant, that's kind of the point. Now I'm aware I've droned on enough about this stuff and I'm going to concentrate on footie for a while. Do feel free to reply but I'm probably not going to engage any more with this part of the thread. I'll reply. I recommend you should read my reply regardless of whether you respond to it. They are not standard definitions at all. Any dictionary defines racism, differently to you I might add. Any old Tom, Dick or Harry can tell you roughly what racism is. A university education is not required. When I was at university, even though they spoke a lot of bull, they still had the decency to call institutional racism institutional racism rather than just racism. And though this nonsense originated in the 1970's this has only taken root recently (I only left university 4 years ago and this nonsense was relatively unheard of then). So me paying more attention wouldn't have resulted in me 'seeing the light'. I was told a lot of rubbish at university but my lecturers were kind enough to distinguish between two different concepts by giving them two different names. Language is useful like that. Most sociologists acknowledge the difference between the two concepts, it is just frankly sinister individuals who have chosen to conflate them. And it is mainly black supremacists not sociologists that have asserted that because the sociological definition of racism is different to the (actual) standard one that this means black people cannot be racist. I wonder why. This ridiculous conflation of two separate concepts under the guise of intellectualism also means that white South Africans can't be racist. Let that sink in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.