Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect a large proportion of the Labour Party is anti Semitic and racist. Starmer is just the slick Brylcreemed front man trying to convince the electorate that Labour is a moderate party. If ever they get elected I think we will see the dark side of Labour very rapidly come to the fore again." Why would you "suspect" that? Do you also "suspect" that a large part of the Conservative party is anti-Muslim? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect a large proportion of the Labour Party is anti Semitic and racist. Starmer is just the slick Brylcreemed front man trying to convince the electorate that Labour is a moderate party. If ever they get elected I think we will see the dark side of Labour very rapidly come to the fore again. Why would you "suspect" that? Do you also "suspect" that a large part of the Conservative party is anti-Muslim?" The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. We've had plenty of "Whataboutery" from its jew-baiting apologists over the years. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party." Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She had to go. Clearly has poor judgement." "Poor judgement" lol. Sorry about all the anti-Semitism and racism. It was just a temporary lapse in judgement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism." It's the natural endpoint of playing too much identity politics and seeing life as the Victim Olympics. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect a large proportion of the Labour Party is anti Semitic and racist. Starmer is just the slick Brylcreemed front man trying to convince the electorate that Labour is a moderate party. If ever they get elected I think we will see the dark side of Labour very rapidly come to the fore again. Why would you "suspect" that? Do you also "suspect" that a large part of the Conservative party is anti-Muslim? The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. We've had plenty of "Whataboutery" from its jew-baiting apologists over the years." Not whataboutism. The correct action was taken, and I can post anything that I choose. It's on topic. What constitutes "suspecting" a "large proportion" of a party being antisemitic or anti-Islamic? Can you just say that because there have been complaints and investigations? Why a "large proportion" rather than "some" or a "small number"? What will the "dark side" of the Labour party be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism." Fair summary. She wasn't expressing any hatred of Jewish people but it does not help put the party's recent problems behind them, as this thread demonstrates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect a large proportion of the Labour Party is anti Semitic and racist. Starmer is just the slick Brylcreemed front man trying to convince the electorate that Labour is a moderate party. If ever they get elected I think we will see the dark side of Labour very rapidly come to the fore again. Why would you "suspect" that? Do you also "suspect" that a large part of the Conservative party is anti-Muslim? The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. We've had plenty of "Whataboutery" from its jew-baiting apologists over the years. Not whataboutism. The correct action was taken, and I can post anything that I choose. It's on topic. What constitutes "suspecting" a "large proportion" of a party being antisemitic or anti-Islamic? Can you just say that because there have been complaints and investigations? Why a "large proportion" rather than "some" or a "small number"? What will the "dark side" of the Labour party be?" You don't feel that Labour's antisemitism and racism is dark enough? As per usual there is no shortage of apologists seeking to distract from Labour's racism. The party is led by a man who has spent years propping up racists and anti Semites. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She wrote a letter in the Observer claiming white people with points of difference can experience prejudice, but they are not subject to racism all their lives. She wrote Irish, Jewish and Traveller people undoubtedly experience prejudice, which is similar to racism! There is more to the letter than this obviously. In my opinion it has taken a long time to get to this point with her, but better late than never. I'm thinking is this similar to the gammon comments on another thread? " I think that she has lost the plot a little. She has been having increasingly more bizarre Twitter meltdowns in recent weeks and months and this seems to be a culmination of a lot of things for her. Perhaps this is one of those moments when time has moved beyond what she can cope with and she has nothing left to offer. Time catches up with us all eventually. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ?" No, she's saying that us white people all feel some sort of innate bond with each other, and that while we might not get on with travellers or Jews, we recognise that they're white, and therefore not all bad. She's saying that we save our real hatred for black people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism." I'm in complete agreement. This episode showed that she's not suitable for public office. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect a large proportion of the Labour Party is anti Semitic and racist. Starmer is just the slick Brylcreemed front man trying to convince the electorate that Labour is a moderate party. If ever they get elected I think we will see the dark side of Labour very rapidly come to the fore again. Why would you "suspect" that? Do you also "suspect" that a large part of the Conservative party is anti-Muslim? The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. We've had plenty of "Whataboutery" from its jew-baiting apologists over the years. Not whataboutism. The correct action was taken, and I can post anything that I choose. It's on topic. What constitutes "suspecting" a "large proportion" of a party being antisemitic or anti-Islamic? Can you just say that because there have been complaints and investigations? Why a "large proportion" rather than "some" or a "small number"? What will the "dark side" of the Labour party be? You don't feel that Labour's antisemitism and racism is dark enough? As per usual there is no shortage of apologists seeking to distract from Labour's racism. The party is led by a man who has spent years propping up racists and anti Semites. " How has "Labour" expressed its "antisemitism" and "racism"? What policies do they have around this issue? Do they have an aim to target and victimise Jews? All other races too? Is it national members, local ones, activists? All of them? Ten of them? What does "proping-up" "racists" and "anti-Semites" mean other than a generalised slur? This sounds like an attempt to generalise for political ends just as you could try to do the same about specific anti-Muslim and racist incidents in the Conservative party. Nobody is apologising, but there is also no justification in using a pretext to generalise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? No, she's saying that us white people all feel some sort of innate bond with each other, and that while we might not get on with travellers or Jews, we recognise that they're white, and therefore not all bad. She's saying that we save our real hatred for black people." I disagree there. She was actually saying that some groups do not experience racism throughout their lives and in every aspect of it because their difference is more visible. There was also an implication that the racism levelled against those with fairer skin is "only" prejudice. I don't think any implication of a bond though. She's wrong, of course. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect a large proportion of the Labour Party is anti Semitic and racist. Starmer is just the slick Brylcreemed front man trying to convince the electorate that Labour is a moderate party. If ever they get elected I think we will see the dark side of Labour very rapidly come to the fore again. Why would you "suspect" that? Do you also "suspect" that a large part of the Conservative party is anti-Muslim? The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. We've had plenty of "Whataboutery" from its jew-baiting apologists over the years. Not whataboutism. The correct action was taken, and I can post anything that I choose. It's on topic. What constitutes "suspecting" a "large proportion" of a party being antisemitic or anti-Islamic? Can you just say that because there have been complaints and investigations? Why a "large proportion" rather than "some" or a "small number"? What will the "dark side" of the Labour party be? You don't feel that Labour's antisemitism and racism is dark enough? As per usual there is no shortage of apologists seeking to distract from Labour's racism. The party is led by a man who has spent years propping up racists and anti Semites. How has "Labour" expressed its "antisemitism" and "racism"? What policies do they have around this issue? Do they have an aim to target and victimise Jews? All other races too? Is it national members, local ones, activists? All of them? Ten of them? What does "proping-up" "racists" and "anti-Semites" mean other than a generalised slur? This sounds like an attempt to generalise for political ends just as you could try to do the same about specific anti-Muslim and racist incidents in the Conservative party. Nobody is apologising, but there is also no justification in using a pretext to generalise." What do you mean by "how"? What do you mean by "has"? What do you mean by "Labour"? I think it's clear where you are coming from. "I have condemned racism but".... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on " There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism." I think you have underplayed the significance of her words. She has shown prejudice against namely Jewish people by writing that they do not face racism, they face more of a prejudice such as a person would face with red hair! She has completely ignored the facts of history and even the most recent attacks against the Jewish peoples, the holocaust. That is prejudice against Jewish people, which is anti semitism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. " She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? " In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.........." So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? " She may mean when the racist has identified that the traveller, Irish or jewish person is not of their culture, in short they would need to know in order to be racist. but put me in the same line up....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? She may mean when the racist has identified that the traveller, Irish or jewish person is not of their culture, in short they would need to know in order to be racist. but put me in the same line up......." have you read her letter ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways?" Racism is not my issue, its yours, I just suffer from it or perceived to suffer from it, I do not cause it nor do I act in ways that reinforce racist views. How can a white person as you put it experience racism when racism is a pandemic within your race. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? She may mean when the racist has identified that the traveller, Irish or jewish person is not of their culture, in short they would need to know in order to be racist. but put me in the same line up.......have you read her letter ?" yes, and I always speak for the underdog to get a clear view of the issues facing us all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.........." The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? Racism is not my issue, its yours, I just suffer from it or perceived to suffer from it, I do not cause it nor do I act in ways that reinforce racist views. How can a white person as you put it experience racism when racism is a pandemic within your race." If you truly believe that racism is 'my issue' or a 'pandemic within the white race' I'm afraid you're as much part of the problem with racism as anyone else. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective " Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? She may mean when the racist has identified that the traveller, Irish or jewish person is not of their culture, in short they would need to know in order to be racist. but put me in the same line up.......have you read her letter ? yes, and I always speak for the underdog to get a clear view of the issues facing us all." fair enough. You've taken a different view of what she wrote then. I read nothing on this being about identified as a different race. Although tbh I couldn't completly follow her thoughts. (I do accept your points, however I'm not agreeing it's her point!) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? Racism is not my issue, its yours, I just suffer from it or perceived to suffer from it, I do not cause it nor do I act in ways that reinforce racist views. How can a white person as you put it experience racism when racism is a pandemic within your race. If you truly believe that racism is 'my issue' or a 'pandemic within the white race' I'm afraid you're as much part of the problem with racism as anyone else." That is my experience, I cannot change it, but you can change my experience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it." Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? Racism is not my issue, its yours, I just suffer from it or perceived to suffer from it, I do not cause it nor do I act in ways that reinforce racist views. How can a white person as you put it experience racism when racism is a pandemic within your race. If you truly believe that racism is 'my issue' or a 'pandemic within the white race' I'm afraid you're as much part of the problem with racism as anyone else. That is my experience, I cannot change it, but you can change my experience." Genuinely, seeing your response here, and it's not the first time. I don't feel I'm able to help change your view of the world. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. " HAHA You have no idea what I do. You really do not. I have no reason to read this report, like you had to. From my experience I know what she means. This isn't my issue its yours. As for losing the whip, labour imho are looking dodgy and will do anything to get to power, which is looking more likely so her writing what she wrote couldn't come at a worst time for them the last thing they need. She will be thrown out of the party for this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are more white ppl in the UK than black. If racism was equally prevalent in the black community as white, there would still be more cases of racism against black people due to the balance. As such we need to be careful about claiming racism is pandemic within the white community versus being experienced more by the black community. " I would say in the last 7 years I have amassed 32 thousand pounds just in claims due to racism the last payment 10 thousand due to racism. So again this is my experience, and it is white people like yourselves who have caused this, who have given me this cash. You need to discuss this within yourselves, stop looking at others and look within. Like all bad eggs they hide within their communities , so its up to the community to seek these eggs out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are more white ppl in the UK than black. If racism was equally prevalent in the black community as white, there would still be more cases of racism against black people due to the balance. As such we need to be careful about claiming racism is pandemic within the white community versus being experienced more by the black community. " When I speak to women regarding men, it seems misogynistic behaviour is also a pandemic within men, guess what women cannot solve this only men can because it is our issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. HAHA You have no idea what I do. You really do not. I have no reason to read this report, like you had to. From my experience I know what she means. This isn't my issue its yours. As for losing the whip, labour imho are looking dodgy and will do anything to get to power, which is looking more likely so her writing what she wrote couldn't come at a worst time for them the last thing they need. She will be thrown out of the party for this. " I read the report to educate myself, to understand more than my own opinion. It is rather informative and certainly made me realise my own perceptions were out. You say you support the underdog? If that is the case, you might be a little surprised who you need to be getting behind. Abbott got it very wrong, she displayed anti semitism through her prejudice and she should be kicked out of the party, | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. HAHA You have no idea what I do. You really do not. I have no reason to read this report, like you had to. From my experience I know what she means. This isn't my issue its yours. As for losing the whip, labour imho are looking dodgy and will do anything to get to power, which is looking more likely so her writing what she wrote couldn't come at a worst time for them the last thing they need. She will be thrown out of the party for this. I read the report to educate myself, to understand more than my own opinion. It is rather informative and certainly made me realise my own perceptions were out. You say you support the underdog? If that is the case, you might be a little surprised who you need to be getting behind. Abbott got it very wrong, she displayed anti semitism through her prejudice and she should be kicked out of the party, " I have already expressed that she'll be kicked out, but more for political reasons rather than what she wrote. Its a woke time at the moment and everyone with a social profile or life has to be seen following the narrative. If the masses agree, then just agree with the masses. makes life easier. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. HAHA You have no idea what I do. You really do not. I have no reason to read this report, like you had to. From my experience I know what she means. This isn't my issue its yours. As for losing the whip, labour imho are looking dodgy and will do anything to get to power, which is looking more likely so her writing what she wrote couldn't come at a worst time for them the last thing they need. She will be thrown out of the party for this. I read the report to educate myself, to understand more than my own opinion. It is rather informative and certainly made me realise my own perceptions were out. You say you support the underdog? If that is the case, you might be a little surprised who you need to be getting behind. Abbott got it very wrong, she displayed anti semitism through her prejudice and she should be kicked out of the party, I have already expressed that she'll be kicked out, but more for political reasons rather than what she wrote. Its a woke time at the moment and everyone with a social profile or life has to be seen following the narrative. If the masses agree, then just agree with the masses. makes life easier." Do you support what she wrote? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. HAHA You have no idea what I do. You really do not. I have no reason to read this report, like you had to. From my experience I know what she means. This isn't my issue its yours. As for losing the whip, labour imho are looking dodgy and will do anything to get to power, which is looking more likely so her writing what she wrote couldn't come at a worst time for them the last thing they need. She will be thrown out of the party for this. I read the report to educate myself, to understand more than my own opinion. It is rather informative and certainly made me realise my own perceptions were out. You say you support the underdog? If that is the case, you might be a little surprised who you need to be getting behind. Abbott got it very wrong, she displayed anti semitism through her prejudice and she should be kicked out of the party, I have already expressed that she'll be kicked out, but more for political reasons rather than what she wrote. Its a woke time at the moment and everyone with a social profile or life has to be seen following the narrative. If the masses agree, then just agree with the masses. makes life easier. Do you support what she wrote?" I do not have to support anything except my view based on my experience of living in this country since birth, I can see what she was attempting to say, she said it in a way that would be hard to accept for people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. HAHA You have no idea what I do. You really do not. I have no reason to read this report, like you had to. From my experience I know what she means. This isn't my issue its yours. As for losing the whip, labour imho are looking dodgy and will do anything to get to power, which is looking more likely so her writing what she wrote couldn't come at a worst time for them the last thing they need. She will be thrown out of the party for this. I read the report to educate myself, to understand more than my own opinion. It is rather informative and certainly made me realise my own perceptions were out. You say you support the underdog? If that is the case, you might be a little surprised who you need to be getting behind. Abbott got it very wrong, she displayed anti semitism through her prejudice and she should be kicked out of the party, I have already expressed that she'll be kicked out, but more for political reasons rather than what she wrote. Its a woke time at the moment and everyone with a social profile or life has to be seen following the narrative. If the masses agree, then just agree with the masses. makes life easier. Do you support what she wrote? I do not have to support anything except my view based on my experience of living in this country since birth, I can see what she was attempting to say, she said it in a way that would be hard to accept for people. " Why is this about you? The fact she said Jewish, Irish and travellers don’t face racism is the question. Do you agree or disagree with that, simple yes or no  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a white person living in a predominantly white country and in a location that is also very white, I have very little first hand experience of racism and have certainly not been the target if racism. I think it is quite clear that racism can more easily be triggered by someone having black skin as this provides a visual short cut. However, I would say that racism against caucasian “brown” people is also prevalent (arabs, afghans, Iranians jews, southern asian). Abbott may have been trying to make an interesting point, but her lack of judgement meant it was clumsily made. She knows/knew how controversial the statement would be, so her points needed extremely careful consideration before being made. Nobody should ever be dismissive of other people’s lived experiences. She should know that." I think it was clumsy & ill thought out rather than anti semitic , Diane Abbot does seem to sometimes seem to start talking or typing before she has fully engaged her brain , we all do it occasionally but as a public figure she needs to be more careful | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a white person living in a predominantly white country and in a location that is also very white, I have very little first hand experience of racism and have certainly not been the target if racism. I think it is quite clear that racism can more easily be triggered by someone having black skin as this provides a visual short cut. However, I would say that racism against caucasian “brown” people is also prevalent (arabs, afghans, Iranians jews, southern asian). Abbott may have been trying to make an interesting point, but her lack of judgement meant it was clumsily made. She knows/knew how controversial the statement would be, so her points needed extremely careful consideration before being made. Nobody should ever be dismissive of other people’s lived experiences. She should know that. I think it was clumsy & ill thought out rather than anti semitic , Diane Abbot does seem to sometimes seem to start talking or typing before she has fully engaged her brain , we all do it occasionally but as a public figure she needs to be more careful " Why were her thoughts not anti semitic? She ignored completely the history of jewish people and likened anything they would face as a prejudice similar to someone with red hair. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"As a white person living in a predominantly white country and in a location that is also very white, I have very little first hand experience of racism and have certainly not been the target if racism. I think it is quite clear that racism can more easily be triggered by someone having black skin as this provides a visual short cut. However, I would say that racism against caucasian “brown” people is also prevalent (arabs, afghans, Iranians jews, southern asian). Abbott may have been trying to make an interesting point, but her lack of judgement meant it was clumsily made. She knows/knew how controversial the statement would be, so her points needed extremely careful consideration before being made. Nobody should ever be dismissive of other people’s lived experiences. She should know that." The minority group that suffered most racist assaults were GRT according to a report by Manchester and London Universities. That is what triggered Abbott to write the response. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are more white ppl in the UK than black. If racism was equally prevalent in the black community as white, there would still be more cases of racism against black people due to the balance. As such we need to be careful about claiming racism is pandemic within the white community versus being experienced more by the black community. I would say in the last 7 years I have amassed 32 thousand pounds just in claims due to racism the last payment 10 thousand due to racism. So again this is my experience, and it is white people like yourselves who have caused this, who have given me this cash. You need to discuss this within yourselves, stop looking at others and look within. Like all bad eggs they hide within their communities , so its up to the community to seek these eggs out." I'm not denying your experience. You will receive a lot more incidences of racism even if whites are no more racist than blacks. So your experience does not, in itself, negate my post. Do you believe there are more racists (per 1,000 ppl) in the white community than black, and if so, what supports this view. (Again, simply taking about your experience isnt enough as you meet a lot more white people than I do black, because that's the UK's population mix). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... The letter she wrote in the observer was a reply to a report by universities of St Andrews, Manchester and King’s College London that delved into the matter of racism across ethnic and religious minorities. The report showed that racist assaults occurred more frequently against GRT than any other group. She didn't like that and in my opinion was trying to down play the facts, you too are down playing the impact of racism on others. Google "racism is not a black and white issue, it is far more complicated than that". You will get to see what she was responding to with her letter, outs it into perspective Am I, ok. I do not need to read any reports, as I said before this isn't really my issue, its is yours to resolve really. I am just saying I understand what she is saying, she just need a more equant way to express it. Your opinions expressed here would indicate that you really should read the report to get a better idea of the world and the problems people face. HAHA You have no idea what I do. You really do not. I have no reason to read this report, like you had to. From my experience I know what she means. This isn't my issue its yours. As for losing the whip, labour imho are looking dodgy and will do anything to get to power, which is looking more likely so her writing what she wrote couldn't come at a worst time for them the last thing they need. She will be thrown out of the party for this. I read the report to educate myself, to understand more than my own opinion. It is rather informative and certainly made me realise my own perceptions were out. You say you support the underdog? If that is the case, you might be a little surprised who you need to be getting behind. Abbott got it very wrong, she displayed anti semitism through her prejudice and she should be kicked out of the party, I have already expressed that she'll be kicked out, but more for political reasons rather than what she wrote. Its a woke time at the moment and everyone with a social profile or life has to be seen following the narrative. If the masses agree, then just agree with the masses. makes life easier. Do you support what she wrote? I do not have to support anything except my view based on my experience of living in this country since birth, I can see what she was attempting to say, she said it in a way that would be hard to accept for people. Why is this about you? The fact she said Jewish, Irish and travellers don’t face racism is the question. Do you agree or disagree with that, simple yes or no "Everything is either me, you, us or them, and I am not required to answer anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I suspect a large proportion of the Labour Party is anti Semitic and racist. Starmer is just the slick Brylcreemed front man trying to convince the electorate that Labour is a moderate party. If ever they get elected I think we will see the dark side of Labour very rapidly come to the fore again. Why would you "suspect" that? Do you also "suspect" that a large part of the Conservative party is anti-Muslim? The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. We've had plenty of "Whataboutery" from its jew-baiting apologists over the years. Not whataboutism. The correct action was taken, and I can post anything that I choose. It's on topic. What constitutes "suspecting" a "large proportion" of a party being antisemitic or anti-Islamic? Can you just say that because there have been complaints and investigations? Why a "large proportion" rather than "some" or a "small number"? What will the "dark side" of the Labour party be? You don't feel that Labour's antisemitism and racism is dark enough? As per usual there is no shortage of apologists seeking to distract from Labour's racism. The party is led by a man who has spent years propping up racists and anti Semites. How has "Labour" expressed its "antisemitism" and "racism"? What policies do they have around this issue? Do they have an aim to target and victimise Jews? All other races too? Is it national members, local ones, activists? All of them? Ten of them? What does "proping-up" "racists" and "anti-Semites" mean other than a generalised slur? This sounds like an attempt to generalise for political ends just as you could try to do the same about specific anti-Muslim and racist incidents in the Conservative party. Nobody is apologising, but there is also no justification in using a pretext to generalise. What do you mean by "how"? What do you mean by "has"? What do you mean by "Labour"? I think it's clear where you are coming from. "I have condemned racism but"...." "How" - What has the Labour party done as an organisation (as opposed to individuals within it) to express its anti-Semitism? I provided several possibilities in the paragraph after the question. I don't know what you are referring to in asking for a definition of "has". "Labour" - Meaning the Labour party. The organisation that you referred to, I believe. I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism. I think you have underplayed the significance of her words. She has shown prejudice against namely Jewish people by writing that they do not face racism, they face more of a prejudice such as a person would face with red hair! She has completely ignored the facts of history and even the most recent attacks against the Jewish peoples, the holocaust. That is prejudice against Jewish people, which is anti semitism." I think that you are over-stepping here. She is certainly completely incorrect in seeking to differentiate the Jewish, or Irish or Romany experience of racism as distinct from those with a different skin colour by using the word "prejudice". There is no difference. What she was, very clumsily, trying to express has been vocalised by others in this thread and it is a difficult thing to do. The way she did it was just plain wrong. However, that is a long way from characterising Jews negatively or victimising them in some way. I really don't see how she did that. Can you explain further what you mean? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? No, she's saying that us white people all feel some sort of innate bond with each other, and that while we might not get on with travellers or Jews, we recognise that they're white, and therefore not all bad. She's saying that we save our real hatred for black people." Which is kind of what I said. There’s a very distinct kind of racism in the uk about black that’s different to Jewish. It’s about the colour of skin , old people with bad eyesight etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this?" Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism. I think you have underplayed the significance of her words. She has shown prejudice against namely Jewish people by writing that they do not face racism, they face more of a prejudice such as a person would face with red hair! She has completely ignored the facts of history and even the most recent attacks against the Jewish peoples, the holocaust. That is prejudice against Jewish people, which is anti semitism. I think that you are over-stepping here. She is certainly completely incorrect in seeking to differentiate the Jewish, or Irish or Romany experience of racism as distinct from those with a different skin colour by using the word "prejudice". There is no difference. What she was, very clumsily, trying to express has been vocalised by others in this thread and it is a difficult thing to do. The way she did it was just plain wrong. However, that is a long way from characterising Jews negatively or victimising them in some way. I really don't see how she did that. Can you explain further what you mean?" Even Smarmball Starmer has said that her comments were antisemitic. Did you not get the WhatsApp from head office? Odd that you continue to deny it. Maybe it's just a conspiracy between the Zionists and the Gammon. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways?" It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism. I think you have underplayed the significance of her words. She has shown prejudice against namely Jewish people by writing that they do not face racism, they face more of a prejudice such as a person would face with red hair! She has completely ignored the facts of history and even the most recent attacks against the Jewish peoples, the holocaust. That is prejudice against Jewish people, which is anti semitism. I think that you are over-stepping here. She is certainly completely incorrect in seeking to differentiate the Jewish, or Irish or Romany experience of racism as distinct from those with a different skin colour by using the word "prejudice". There is no difference. What she was, very clumsily, trying to express has been vocalised by others in this thread and it is a difficult thing to do. The way she did it was just plain wrong. However, that is a long way from characterising Jews negatively or victimising them in some way. I really don't see how she did that. Can you explain further what you mean?" I'm not over stepping at all, why do you think there is so much noise over this? Anti semitism = prejudice towards Jewish people. By saying the racism that Jewish people face is like prejudice shown to red haired people is a disgrace. She knew that today in the UK the Jewish communities are the 3rd highest minority group for racial assault, that is why she was wrote the letter. She saw the report and her prejudice kicked in to change the narrative of fact, and I wont get onto the holocaust as you must agree that was also overlooked in by her. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. " I know what the report said. Does this make "a large proportion of the Labour party" antisemitic? It appeared to me that this was criticism of those involved in the organisational structure and process not the membership of the party. There is also a gap between not preventing or even accepting antisemitism and being antisemitic. More than a quibbling over a definition but quite a big difference in intention and act. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. I know what the report said. Does this make "a large proportion of the Labour party" antisemitic? It appeared to me that this was criticism of those involved in the organisational structure and process not the membership of the party. There is also a gap between not preventing or even accepting antisemitism and being antisemitic. More than a quibbling over a definition but quite a big difference in intention and act." What? There must be anti semitism in the party to create complaints! The same complaints they were ordered to address and create an action plan to address. Even Starmer apologised and as done for the Abbott letter. Why do you know better than the leader of the party? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What does a Jewish person or traveller look like? Answering this question in itself is racist " It is, I guess in the same way as answering what an Irish or Scandinavian or Dutch person looks like. You can at least hazard a guess. The point isn't in distinguishing them differently or even interacting with them differently. It's in applying negative attitudes and treatments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism. I think you have underplayed the significance of her words. She has shown prejudice against namely Jewish people by writing that they do not face racism, they face more of a prejudice such as a person would face with red hair! She has completely ignored the facts of history and even the most recent attacks against the Jewish peoples, the holocaust. That is prejudice against Jewish people, which is anti semitism. I think that you are over-stepping here. She is certainly completely incorrect in seeking to differentiate the Jewish, or Irish or Romany experience of racism as distinct from those with a different skin colour by using the word "prejudice". There is no difference. What she was, very clumsily, trying to express has been vocalised by others in this thread and it is a difficult thing to do. The way she did it was just plain wrong. However, that is a long way from characterising Jews negatively or victimising them in some way. I really don't see how she did that. Can you explain further what you mean? I'm not over stepping at all, why do you think there is so much noise over this? Anti semitism = prejudice towards Jewish people. By saying the racism that Jewish people face is like prejudice shown to red haired people is a disgrace. She knew that today in the UK the Jewish communities are the 3rd highest minority group for racial assault, that is why she was wrote the letter. She saw the report and her prejudice kicked in to change the narrative of fact, and I wont get onto the holocaust as you must agree that was also overlooked in by her. " I didn't read her as comparing the experience of Jews or Romany's or the Irish to that of people with red hair. It seemed to me that she tried, and failed, to define the racism experienced by visibly different ethnicities as worse than that experienced by those with the same skin colour as the majority population. That is not true. It's every bit as bad. That's not denigrating Jewish people or the Roma or the Irish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What does a Jewish person or traveller look like? Answering this question in itself is racist It is, I guess in the same way as answering what an Irish or Scandinavian or Dutch person looks like. You can at least hazard a guess. The point isn't in distinguishing them differently or even interacting with them differently. It's in applying negative attitudes and treatments." The point is everyone knows what a black person looks like , even if they are over the road. All forms of racism, conscious and non-conscious bias are about differences in peoples appearance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. I know what the report said. Does this make "a large proportion of the Labour party" antisemitic? It appeared to me that this was criticism of those involved in the organisational structure and process not the membership of the party. There is also a gap between not preventing or even accepting antisemitism and being antisemitic. More than a quibbling over a definition but quite a big difference in intention and act. What? There must be anti semitism in the party to create complaints! The same complaints they were ordered to address and create an action plan to address. Even Starmer apologised and as done for the Abbott letter. Why do you know better than the leader of the party? " I'm not saying that there isn't some level of antisemitism. That is not the same as saying that "a large proportion of the Labour party", is it? That was the assertion that I was querying. Kier Starmer can say whatever he likes. I don't have to agree with him not does it imply that I know better than him as a fellow gentile. You have, howy, underlined why antisemitism is a particular issue for the Labour party and allows no space for discussion. Abbot said what she said, like an idiot, and has been treated accordingly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Knee-jerk reaction begats knee-jerk politics. Abbot was probably one more focussed draft away from saying something quite worthwhile there, something with a bit of nuance to it for a change, but she did it in such a ham-fisted way that any nuance therein - which is not in vogue at present - was bound to be dead on arrival. Abbot has always been something of a political liability. She's better off out of it, and Labour will be too. Starmer isn't going to let the anti-semitism stuff flare up again, he'll purge the party of anyone who even thinks about making a joke about Jews first. And I'd do the same in his position - jettison anything that lost votes last time around. And I'm glad because another 5 years of these Tories we need about as much as a fat hole in the head! As for Labour's perceived dislike of Jews... I still prefer them over the Conservatives who have a very definite and profound dislike of anyone remotely working class, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Mr" Ignoring the last part which is a separate topic, I think that this is well expressed. There was something meaningful in there but it won't (and can't) be considered in a thoughtful way given the circumstances. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism. I think you have underplayed the significance of her words. She has shown prejudice against namely Jewish people by writing that they do not face racism, they face more of a prejudice such as a person would face with red hair! She has completely ignored the facts of history and even the most recent attacks against the Jewish peoples, the holocaust. That is prejudice against Jewish people, which is anti semitism. I think that you are over-stepping here. She is certainly completely incorrect in seeking to differentiate the Jewish, or Irish or Romany experience of racism as distinct from those with a different skin colour by using the word "prejudice". There is no difference. What she was, very clumsily, trying to express has been vocalised by others in this thread and it is a difficult thing to do. The way she did it was just plain wrong. However, that is a long way from characterising Jews negatively or victimising them in some way. I really don't see how she did that. Can you explain further what you mean? I'm not over stepping at all, why do you think there is so much noise over this? Anti semitism = prejudice towards Jewish people. By saying the racism that Jewish people face is like prejudice shown to red haired people is a disgrace. She knew that today in the UK the Jewish communities are the 3rd highest minority group for racial assault, that is why she was wrote the letter. She saw the report and her prejudice kicked in to change the narrative of fact, and I wont get onto the holocaust as you must agree that was also overlooked in by her. I didn't read her as comparing the experience of Jews or Romany's or the Irish to that of people with red hair. It seemed to me that she tried, and failed, to define the racism experienced by visibly different ethnicities as worse than that experienced by those with the same skin colour as the majority population. That is not true. It's every bit as bad. That's not denigrating Jewish people or the Roma or the Irish." You are saying that Abbott's comments were not anti semitic, I have provided a snapshot of those who thing they were. Starmer said they were anti semitic, John Mann advisor on anti semitism has suggested she does not stand again, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said Ms Abbott’s letter “was disgraceful and her apology is entirely unconvincing, Labour Against Antisemitism said Ms Abbott’s comments were “simply unacceptable. To reduce the racism faced by Jews to mere prejudice when in living memory six million Jews were systematically slaughtered in Europe for their race is grossly offensive Now tell me what how you know more than the above on this subject. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. I know what the report said. Does this make "a large proportion of the Labour party" antisemitic? It appeared to me that this was criticism of those involved in the organisational structure and process not the membership of the party. There is also a gap between not preventing or even accepting antisemitism and being antisemitic. More than a quibbling over a definition but quite a big difference in intention and act. What? There must be anti semitism in the party to create complaints! The same complaints they were ordered to address and create an action plan to address. Even Starmer apologised and as done for the Abbott letter. Why do you know better than the leader of the party? I'm not saying that there isn't some level of antisemitism. That is not the same as saying that "a large proportion of the Labour party", is it? That was the assertion that I was querying. Kier Starmer can say whatever he likes. I don't have to agree with him not does it imply that I know better than him as a fellow gentile. You have, howy, underlined why antisemitism is a particular issue for the Labour party and allows no space for discussion. Abbot said what she said, like an idiot, and has been treated accordingly." There is no level of anti semitism, it is or it is not, it doesn't come on a sliding scale the same as racism doesn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The thread isn't about the Conservative Party. It's about the evident continued anti Semitism of the Labour Party. Let's be honest, this isn't anti-Semitism. This is a black person wanting to claim that black people suffer more racism than anyone else. It was crass and insensitive, and she deserves to be thrown out of the party, but it isn't anti-Semitism. I think you have underplayed the significance of her words. She has shown prejudice against namely Jewish people by writing that they do not face racism, they face more of a prejudice such as a person would face with red hair! She has completely ignored the facts of history and even the most recent attacks against the Jewish peoples, the holocaust. That is prejudice against Jewish people, which is anti semitism. I think that you are over-stepping here. She is certainly completely incorrect in seeking to differentiate the Jewish, or Irish or Romany experience of racism as distinct from those with a different skin colour by using the word "prejudice". There is no difference. What she was, very clumsily, trying to express has been vocalised by others in this thread and it is a difficult thing to do. The way she did it was just plain wrong. However, that is a long way from characterising Jews negatively or victimising them in some way. I really don't see how she did that. Can you explain further what you mean? I'm not over stepping at all, why do you think there is so much noise over this? Anti semitism = prejudice towards Jewish people. By saying the racism that Jewish people face is like prejudice shown to red haired people is a disgrace. She knew that today in the UK the Jewish communities are the 3rd highest minority group for racial assault, that is why she was wrote the letter. She saw the report and her prejudice kicked in to change the narrative of fact, and I wont get onto the holocaust as you must agree that was also overlooked in by her. I didn't read her as comparing the experience of Jews or Romany's or the Irish to that of people with red hair. It seemed to me that she tried, and failed, to define the racism experienced by visibly different ethnicities as worse than that experienced by those with the same skin colour as the majority population. That is not true. It's every bit as bad. That's not denigrating Jewish people or the Roma or the Irish. You are saying that Abbott's comments were not anti semitic, I have provided a snapshot of those who thing they were. Starmer said they were anti semitic, John Mann advisor on anti semitism has suggested she does not stand again, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said Ms Abbott’s letter “was disgraceful and her apology is entirely unconvincing, Labour Against Antisemitism said Ms Abbott’s comments were “simply unacceptable. To reduce the racism faced by Jews to mere prejudice when in living memory six million Jews were systematically slaughtered in Europe for their race is grossly offensive Now tell me what how you know more than the above on this subject." There is a lot of politics associated with this. I also agree that Abbott trying to distinguish the type of racism was wrong. I didn't see any malice in what she said. You clearly did. I've explained what my reasoning is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. I know what the report said. Does this make "a large proportion of the Labour party" antisemitic? It appeared to me that this was criticism of those involved in the organisational structure and process not the membership of the party. There is also a gap between not preventing or even accepting antisemitism and being antisemitic. More than a quibbling over a definition but quite a big difference in intention and act. What? There must be anti semitism in the party to create complaints! The same complaints they were ordered to address and create an action plan to address. Even Starmer apologised and as done for the Abbott letter. Why do you know better than the leader of the party? I'm not saying that there isn't some level of antisemitism. That is not the same as saying that "a large proportion of the Labour party", is it? That was the assertion that I was querying. Kier Starmer can say whatever he likes. I don't have to agree with him not does it imply that I know better than him as a fellow gentile. You have, howy, underlined why antisemitism is a particular issue for the Labour party and allows no space for discussion. Abbot said what she said, like an idiot, and has been treated accordingly. There is no level of anti semitism, it is or it is not, it doesn't come on a sliding scale the same as racism doesn't." That's why I don't think that it is antisemitic. I don't think she intended to denigrate or offend Jews, or Romany's or Irish. Do you? However, in trying to articulate a distinction between one form of racism and another she caused huge offence and anger in an already delicate situation. There is no space for anything except clear condemnation. That is how it needs to be for all manner of reasons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. I know what the report said. Does this make "a large proportion of the Labour party" antisemitic? It appeared to me that this was criticism of those involved in the organisational structure and process not the membership of the party. There is also a gap between not preventing or even accepting antisemitism and being antisemitic. More than a quibbling over a definition but quite a big difference in intention and act. What? There must be anti semitism in the party to create complaints! The same complaints they were ordered to address and create an action plan to address. Even Starmer apologised and as done for the Abbott letter. Why do you know better than the leader of the party? I'm not saying that there isn't some level of antisemitism. That is not the same as saying that "a large proportion of the Labour party", is it? That was the assertion that I was querying. Kier Starmer can say whatever he likes. I don't have to agree with him not does it imply that I know better than him as a fellow gentile. You have, howy, underlined why antisemitism is a particular issue for the Labour party and allows no space for discussion. Abbot said what she said, like an idiot, and has been treated accordingly. There is no level of anti semitism, it is or it is not, it doesn't come on a sliding scale the same as racism doesn't. That's why I don't think that it is antisemitic. I don't think she intended to denigrate or offend Jews, or Romany's or Irish. Do you? However, in trying to articulate a distinction between one form of racism and another she caused huge offence and anger in an already delicate situation. There is no space for anything except clear condemnation. That is how it needs to be for all manner of reasons." She was anti semitic as I have said previously. The report on racism in the UK triggered her response and for her to show her prejudice in arguing against the reports findings and down playing the history of Jewish people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I haven't condemned racism "but" anything. I am asking why anyone would "suspect" that a "large proportion" of the Labour party is anti-Semitic any more than the Conservative party being anti-Islam. What is the "suspicion" based on? Is there a poll or have there been any policies or outcomes that demonstrate this? Equality and Human Rights Commission investigation identified the party was responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment. Going on to say: "The equality body's analysis points to a culture within the party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent anti-Semitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it." EHRC served an unlawful act notice on the Labour party, it had to produce an action plan within six weeks, which is enforceable by the courts if not acted upon. Starmer said it was "a day of shame for the Labour Party" and apologised to the Jewish community. I know what the report said. Does this make "a large proportion of the Labour party" antisemitic? It appeared to me that this was criticism of those involved in the organisational structure and process not the membership of the party. There is also a gap between not preventing or even accepting antisemitism and being antisemitic. More than a quibbling over a definition but quite a big difference in intention and act. What? There must be anti semitism in the party to create complaints! The same complaints they were ordered to address and create an action plan to address. Even Starmer apologised and as done for the Abbott letter. Why do you know better than the leader of the party? I'm not saying that there isn't some level of antisemitism. That is not the same as saying that "a large proportion of the Labour party", is it? That was the assertion that I was querying. Kier Starmer can say whatever he likes. I don't have to agree with him not does it imply that I know better than him as a fellow gentile. You have, howy, underlined why antisemitism is a particular issue for the Labour party and allows no space for discussion. Abbot said what she said, like an idiot, and has been treated accordingly. There is no level of anti semitism, it is or it is not, it doesn't come on a sliding scale the same as racism doesn't. That's why I don't think that it is antisemitic. I don't think she intended to denigrate or offend Jews, or Romany's or Irish. Do you? However, in trying to articulate a distinction between one form of racism and another she caused huge offence and anger in an already delicate situation. There is no space for anything except clear condemnation. That is how it needs to be for all manner of reasons. She was anti semitic as I have said previously. The report on racism in the UK triggered her response and for her to show her prejudice in arguing against the reports findings and down playing the history of Jewish people. " I hope you are clear that I am not taking her part in this. I profoundly disagree with what she wrote. I don't view the intent in the same way you do. When I bristle at what someone says, that is how I will always view the situation. For example, I have got in a lift on a cold day with an older person who commented that it must feel cold for me. I could have taken offence at that but the intent was to be kind and make conversation. I think that Abbott was trying to make a (incorrect) point without particular malice. The way that she did it was expressed in the worst possible way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it." He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject "Sorry, just didn't follow that. I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about."The subject here is clearly racism. The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days. But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man. Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Questions for the thread... 1. Is unintended racism ever acceptable? 2. Should we ever make allowances for people who are accidentally racist (such as a generational thing)? 3. Is it really only racist if you have malicious intent? Interested in opinions on this! " 1. It's not acceptable, but it should be handled with kindness and education. 2. Not really, but again, a kind natured conversation to explain why these things are no longer acceptable. 3. It can still be racist if it's a consequence of ignorance rather than malice. I think another question could be. Is it acceptable for an MP to be unintentionally racist through ignorance. Personally I think not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Questions for the thread... 1. Is unintended racism ever acceptable? 2. Should we ever make allowances for people who are accidentally racist (such as a generational thing)? 3. Is it really only racist if you have malicious intent? Interested in opinions on this! " I'd say yes to all three. Racism and most actions are all about intent. The is a difference between manslaughter and murder is intent. That doesn't mean you let it go. You can draw attention to it and once done would have a right to not expect it to happen again or at least not repeatedly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Questions for the thread... 1. Is unintended racism ever acceptable? 2. Should we ever make allowances for people who are accidentally racist (such as a generational thing)? 3. Is it really only racist if you have malicious intent? Interested in opinions on this! 1. It's not acceptable, but it should be handled with kindness and education. 2. Not really, but again, a kind natured conversation to explain why these things are no longer acceptable. 3. It can still be racist if it's a consequence of ignorance rather than malice. I think another question could be. Is it acceptable for an MP to be unintentionally racist through ignorance. Personally I think not. " Your last point I'd agree with, but because it is effectively part of the job description and they should not be ignorant of it. It's still complicated, but Abbot really has no place writing what she did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out."Oh, you were being hostile again. I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience. Anyone can experience racism. I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man. I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Questions for the thread... 1. Is unintended racism ever acceptable? 2. Should we ever make allowances for people who are accidentally racist (such as a generational thing)? 3. Is it really only racist if you have malicious intent? Interested in opinions on this! 1. It's not acceptable, but it should be handled with kindness and education. 2. Not really, but again, a kind natured conversation to explain why these things are no longer acceptable. 3. It can still be racist if it's a consequence of ignorance rather than malice. I think another question could be. Is it acceptable for an MP to be unintentionally racist through ignorance. Personally I think not. " I agree an MP should never be ignorant. They have less “excuse” than anyone! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about."Anyone can experience racism - your words You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words. And you wonder why people are hostile? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?"I actually wrote this: "If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it." If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group. There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life. I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction."Still downplaying racism against white people? Racism is racism. End of. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction.
Still downplaying racism against white people?
Racism is racism. End of. "I didn't "downplay" anything of the sort. What an extraordinary way to choose to interpret what I've written. Racism is a bad thing and nobody should have to experience it. That doesn't mean that it cannot be experienced differently. Why would you believe that it is experienced in the same way by every individual? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction.
Still downplaying racism against white people?
Racism is racism. End of.
I didn't "downplay" anything of the sort.
What an extraordinary way to choose to interpret what I've written.
Racism is a bad thing and nobody should have to experience it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be experienced differently. Why would you believe that it is experienced in the same way by every individual?"I have never said that I believe it's experienced the same by everyone. 2 people of the same race can experience it differently, let alone 2 people of differing races. You've jumped on this thread and particularly my question, is it because you have a problem with me? See what I did there? The gentleman who I was conversing with initially only sees racism froma black poverty and has time and again dismissed other forms. You've now jumped to his defence because you can't help yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction.
Still downplaying racism against white people?
Racism is racism. End of.
I didn't "downplay" anything of the sort.
What an extraordinary way to choose to interpret what I've written.
Racism is a bad thing and nobody should have to experience it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be experienced differently. Why would you believe that it is experienced in the same way by every individual?
I have never said that I believe it's experienced the same by everyone.
2 people of the same race can experience it differently, let alone 2 people of differing races.
You've jumped on this thread and particularly my question, is it because you have a problem with me? See what I did there?
The gentleman who I was conversing with initially only sees racism froma black poverty and has time and again dismissed other forms. You've now jumped to his defence because you can't help yourself."Think he refers to me. My view is this is a subject for you to discuss with whoever you like, however you like and when you like. Having had this kind of discussion time and time again it always ends something like this, I am the racist, or cannot understand a white persons plight etc, when I see it going that way I am out as there is no learning just accusation. And I saw that you wrote it, it is like when people say an argument always leads to nazis comments, then when speaking racism it always turns on the person of colour. as this thread did. I won't be here now so reply if you must but you will get no answer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Bizarre how people can spend almost a whole day on this thread defending racists and antisemites. Odd hill to die on." What a way to interpret all of this. Who defended what Abbot said and what did she say that was racist? That's exactly where the point about nuance is appropriate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction.
Still downplaying racism against white people?
Racism is racism. End of.
I didn't "downplay" anything of the sort.
What an extraordinary way to choose to interpret what I've written.
Racism is a bad thing and nobody should have to experience it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be experienced differently. Why would you believe that it is experienced in the same way by every individual?
I have never said that I believe it's experienced the same by everyone.
2 people of the same race can experience it differently, let alone 2 people of differing races.
You've jumped on this thread and particularly my question, is it because you have a problem with me? See what I did there?
The gentleman who I was conversing with initially only sees racism froma black poverty and has time and again dismissed other forms. You've now jumped to his defence because you can't help yourself."I have no idea what "he" "time and again" has "dismissed". I have just explained how it is possible to experience racism differently as a member of a visible minority compared to a member of the majority. I didn't dismiss anything or even imply that one experience is felt more or less keenly than another. Apparently, it's now all about you. I have no interest in jumping to anyone's defense. I just made a point in reference to what that poster was communicating based on my experience. Your response did not appear to recognise that. Now, it seems, that you have got it, despite your evident annoyance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction.
Still downplaying racism against white people?
Racism is racism. End of.
I didn't "downplay" anything of the sort.
What an extraordinary way to choose to interpret what I've written.
Racism is a bad thing and nobody should have to experience it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be experienced differently. Why would you believe that it is experienced in the same way by every individual?
I have never said that I believe it's experienced the same by everyone.
2 people of the same race can experience it differently, let alone 2 people of differing races.
You've jumped on this thread and particularly my question, is it because you have a problem with me? See what I did there?
The gentleman who I was conversing with initially only sees racism froma black poverty and has time and again dismissed other forms. You've now jumped to his defence because you can't help yourself.
Think he refers to me.
My view is this is a subject for you to discuss with whoever you like, however you like and when you like.
Having had this kind of discussion time and time again it always ends something like this, I am the racist, or cannot understand a white persons plight etc, when I see it going that way I am out as there is no learning just accusation.
And I saw that you wrote it, it is like when people say an argument always leads to nazis comments, then when speaking racism it always turns on the person of colour.
as this thread did.
I won't be here now so reply if you must but you will get no answer."You don’t surprise me, you appear to have no want or need to understand anything other than your own point of view. You come across as knowing it all, taking thousands of £’s by being so right and being discriminated against. Consider this as you are not responding… the minority group that has the most racist assaults in the UK is GRT. Do you think they would have your success in compensation for being subjected to racism as you have? Those same people who along with the Jewish community are prejudiced rather than being victims of racism according to Abbott. There is no one group that holds rights to being considered more victims of racism than another, racism is not a sliding scale of hurt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction.
Still downplaying racism against white people?
Racism is racism. End of.
I didn't "downplay" anything of the sort.
What an extraordinary way to choose to interpret what I've written.
Racism is a bad thing and nobody should have to experience it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be experienced differently. Why would you believe that it is experienced in the same way by every individual?
I have never said that I believe it's experienced the same by everyone.
2 people of the same race can experience it differently, let alone 2 people of differing races.
You've jumped on this thread and particularly my question, is it because you have a problem with me? See what I did there?
The gentleman who I was conversing with initially only sees racism froma black poverty and has time and again dismissed other forms. You've now jumped to his defence because you can't help yourself.
I have no idea what "he" "time and again" has "dismissed".
I have just explained how it is possible to experience racism differently as a member of a visible minority compared to a member of the majority.
I didn't dismiss anything or even imply that one experience is felt more or less keenly than another.
Apparently, it's now all about you.
I have no interest in jumping to anyone's defense. I just made a point in reference to what that poster was communicating based on my experience. Your response did not appear to recognise that. Now, it seems, that you have got it, despite your evident annoyance."Genuinely thought we were playing the 'it's because it's me' game, you usually like to play that game. Why not tonight? Why else would you answer a question on behalf of someone else? The question was directed at him, not you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think I kind of get what she’s trying to say , that black peoples are subject to racism on appearance , but travellers, Jewish etc it can be harder for people to spot, is that it ? She really needed to think this through more, it’s an interesting concept but not really something a politician should be focussed on There are people of colour who are so light skinned they pass as Caucasian hence do not experience racism, until they are discovered. A female friend some years ago was dating a white fella, until he met her parents, and he discovered her heritage was Jamaican. At that time she became a C%on Ni@@er so I also kinda get what she was getting at. There are many people of colour who do not fit the "norm" and are accepted into caucasian life until their background is discovered and then they become like me and experience what I experience racism or worst he may have felt he had been deceived or made a fool of which could lead to violence. Jews and the other ethnic groups mentioned can also fit into caucasian life, one would have to ask if a person was jewish unless they were wearing traditional wear, which identified them to a particular race or culture. I understand what Dianne abbott was trying to say, just didn't word it in a way to be accepted, as I am having the same issue it is very hard to understand let alone explain. She said Jewish people, Irish and travellers do not face racism all the time, they face prejudice such as a person with red hair would. That is saying people would be aware or identify them as who they are, and as such it would be prejudice shown against them. She has removed racism that has and does happen to these people and replaced it with prejudice, why? In passing I wouldn't know a traveller unless they spoke to me, and that is dodgy for me to say as it would be their accent that would identify them. If the traveller spoke the queens English I wouldn't know unless they said. I am saying that if I lined up Irish, travellers and jewish people how do I tell whos who so that can be racist towards them, but put me in the same line up.......... So what you're saying is white people cannot experience racism unless they speak? Or dress in certain ways? It's not "white people". It's how does a visible minority experience that difference in any society. If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it. I noted in another thread discussing the word "gammon" how someone stated about me that: "judging by your profile photo I can see why you don't think it's racist". I was obviously different, therefore a comment was made about my motivation based on that obvious attribute without further thought. I have also experienced being treated differently in (very, very few) phone conversations before my surname was shared or in person after a telephone only conversation. I do, actually, think that this also holds true for Jews and Romany's. Not so much for the Irish in today's world but certainly in previous times. There is a difference that is difficult to describe. This is the best that I can articulate it. He spoke about lining up different 'white people'. I know how he feels about racism, but only towards back people. I also know how you feel about racism towards 'white men'. I guess because I'm a white man myself, I'm wrong on this subject
Sorry, just didn't follow that.
I don't know what you are saying that you might be "wrong" about.
The subject here is clearly racism.
The only 2 people who disagree with me have IMO disagreed with things i see as racist in the last few days.
But, I guess I'm wrong because I'm a white man.
Genuinely didn't think someone as 'intelligent' as you would need that spelling out.
Oh, you were being hostile again.
I was just explaining how racism can be experienced and understood in different ways depending on your lived experience.
Anyone can experience racism.
I didn't say anything about you being wrong because you are a white man.
I also don't really know what you think I'm disagreeing with you about.
Anyone can experience racism - your words
You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it - also your words.
And you wonder why people are hostile?
I actually wrote this:
"If you are visibly different you are vulnerable to prejudice every moment outside of your home or minority group. It's pervasive. You may be able to empathise with it as a member of the majority group, but you will not experience it."
If you are in the majority group, any experience that you do have of racism will not be the same as that of someone who is visibly different to that group.
There is a difference between feeling it in a transitory way and it being part of the fabric of your daily life.
I was saying that it may be possible to empathise with how the experience is different, but I guess you don't wish to given your reaction.
Still downplaying racism against white people?
Racism is racism. End of.
I didn't "downplay" anything of the sort.
What an extraordinary way to choose to interpret what I've written.
Racism is a bad thing and nobody should have to experience it.
That doesn't mean that it cannot be experienced differently. Why would you believe that it is experienced in the same way by every individual?
I have never said that I believe it's experienced the same by everyone.
2 people of the same race can experience it differently, let alone 2 people of differing races.
You've jumped on this thread and particularly my question, is it because you have a problem with me? See what I did there?
The gentleman who I was conversing with initially only sees racism froma black poverty and has time and again dismissed other forms. You've now jumped to his defence because you can't help yourself.
Think he refers to me.
My view is this is a subject for you to discuss with whoever you like, however you like and when you like.
Having had this kind of discussion time and time again it always ends something like this, I am the racist, or cannot understand a white persons plight etc, when I see it going that way I am out as there is no learning just accusation.
And I saw that you wrote it, it is like when people say an argument always leads to nazis comments, then when speaking racism it always turns on the person of colour.
as this thread did.
I won't be here now so reply if you must but you will get no answer.
You don’t surprise me, you appear to have no want or need to understand anything other than your own point of view.
You come across as knowing it all, taking thousands of £’s by being so right and being discriminated against.
Consider this as you are not responding… the minority group that has the most racist assaults in the UK is GRT. Do you think they would have your success in compensation for being subjected to racism as you have?
Those same people who along with the Jewish community are prejudiced rather than being victims of racism according to Abbott.
There is no one group that holds rights to being considered more victims of racism than another, racism is not a sliding scale of hurt."GRT ok but I wouldn't say that's a good thing but a rather bad thing to happen to a group of people, I wonder who is doing the assaults against these groups. Yes they would have the same success as me, as the rules apply to us all, so why wouldn't they have success as me? What Abbott believes is up to her, it is you continually bringing this up. Again your last line has nothing to do with me, you are fishing for things i haven't said, but Abbott has wrote, so I suggest you email her on her parliamentary account and ask her, maybe I do not know. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What happened to free speech & having a view point ? All I can see is a WITCH HUNT, against the left Let's be honest the things Corbyn and Co are saying they have been saying for 40+ years Yer it's only since Corbyn was party leader that it's all of a sudden a problem I have said this in other threads Keir Starmer or a RAT he is on the elite payroll His job to split the Labour party - the elite would love Corbyn to start a new socialit party splitting the Labour vote - giving the Tory's power Divide & Conquer " A witch hunt??
I'd love Corbyn to start a real left wing party so we can see just how many people want a genuinely left wing government. I'd imagine they wouldn't get anywhere close to Labour's centre position. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What happened to free speech & having a view point ? All I can see is a WITCH HUNT, against the left Let's be honest the things Corbyn and Co are saying they have been saying for 40+ years Yer it's only since Corbyn was party leader that it's all of a sudden a problem I have said this in other threads Keir Starmer or a RAT he is on the elite payroll His job to split the Labour party - the elite would love Corbyn to start a new socialit party splitting the Labour vote - giving the Tory's power Divide & Conquer " Free speech and having a view point is fine. Being offensive is not. What would her reaction had been if the tables were turned and a Jewish person had claimed what she claimed but the other way around. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What happened to free speech & having a view point ? All I can see is a WITCH HUNT, against the left Let's be honest the things Corbyn and Co are saying they have been saying for 40+ years Yer it's only since Corbyn was party leader that it's all of a sudden a problem I have said this in other threads Keir Starmer or a RAT he is on the elite payroll His job to split the Labour party - the elite would love Corbyn to start a new socialit party splitting the Labour vote - giving the Tory's power Divide & Conquer Free speech and having a view point is fine. Being offensive is not. What would her reaction had been if the tables were turned and a Jewish person had claimed what she claimed but the other way around." plus, she was literally published in a national newspaper. How much free sowach do you want? Others can then criticise her views, in the same way her letter was a rebuttal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round 2. Fight!" Have you listened to the interview? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round 2. Fight! Have you listened to the interview?" What an interesting response to someone reviving a topical necro-thread. When combined with being blocked (?!), it suggests you're somehow irrationally triggered. Hmm. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. " Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. " It’s such an obvious point. " Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. " Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. " Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. " If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. " Ah. There we have it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Round 2. Fight! Have you listened to the interview? What an interesting response to someone reviving a topical necro-thread. When combined with being blocked (?!), it suggests you're somehow irrationally triggered. Hmm." It’s not that deep. It was just a question because you revived the thread  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it." The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I can see the point she's trying to make, which I guess is that there are different kinds of racism. Depends on your definition of the word I suppose. But in any event, it's prejudice and both unwelcome and undesirable in our society. But taking her examples of black people, what if there is prejudice in Africa of one group of people against another (as indeed there is). Is that racism? " lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. " How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. " Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin." Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. " Absolutely. But what about unorthodox? A black person is black; there is no escaping that incontrovertible fact and I think that's the point trying to be made. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand?" I do understand the point about visibility and yes, racism can manifest differently depending on how someone is perceived. But what Abbott did was more than describe difference, she ranked the experience, suggesting some forms of racism are not really racism at all, and that is the issue people have with what she wrote. If Jews or Travellers are being singled out, targeted, or attacked because of their identity, that is racism, not prejudice. That is where she caused the backlash. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand? I do understand the point about visibility and yes, racism can manifest differently depending on how someone is perceived. But what Abbott did was more than describe difference, she ranked the experience, suggesting some forms of racism are not really racism at all, and that is the issue people have with what she wrote. If Jews or Travellers are being singled out, targeted, or attacked because of their identity, that is racism, not prejudice. That is where she caused the backlash. " She is entitled to her opinion. Agree or disagree. As a black person that's quite possibly how she feels. Rightly or wrongly. It might be a subjective not objective view. But that is her perception of what she experiences or has witnessed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand? I do understand the point about visibility and yes, racism can manifest differently depending on how someone is perceived. But what Abbott did was more than describe difference, she ranked the experience, suggesting some forms of racism are not really racism at all, and that is the issue people have with what she wrote. If Jews or Travellers are being singled out, targeted, or attacked because of their identity, that is racism, not prejudice. That is where she caused the backlash. She is entitled to her opinion. Agree or disagree. As a black person that's quite possibly how she feels. Rightly or wrongly. It might be a subjective not objective view. But that is her perception of what she experiences or has witnessed." If she calls racism towards certain groups, prejudice when it is in fact racism, she is very wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand? I do understand the point about visibility and yes, racism can manifest differently depending on how someone is perceived. But what Abbott did was more than describe difference, she ranked the experience, suggesting some forms of racism are not really racism at all, and that is the issue people have with what she wrote. If Jews or Travellers are being singled out, targeted, or attacked because of their identity, that is racism, not prejudice. That is where she caused the backlash. She is entitled to her opinion. Agree or disagree. As a black person that's quite possibly how she feels. Rightly or wrongly. It might be a subjective not objective view. But that is her perception of what she experiences or has witnessed. If she calls racism towards certain groups, prejudice when it is in fact racism, she is very wrong. " The interview she was suspended for she doesn’t. At all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. " I can’t believe you are actually comparing religiously mandated clothing or hair to skin colour and you don’t see the ridiculousness. Arguing just for the sake of it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand? I do understand the point about visibility and yes, racism can manifest differently depending on how someone is perceived. But what Abbott did was more than describe difference, she ranked the experience, suggesting some forms of racism are not really racism at all, and that is the issue people have with what she wrote. If Jews or Travellers are being singled out, targeted, or attacked because of their identity, that is racism, not prejudice. That is where she caused the backlash. " The interview she gave recently for which she was suspended she did not say that. Asked about her observer comments (a separate incident which she was suspended for) she said "I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. "I just... I don't know why people would say that." The entire clip is on her Twitter if you haven’t heard it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin." "Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance." "I can’t believe you are actually comparing religiously mandated clothing or hair to skin colour and you don’t see the ridiculousness. Arguing just for the sake of it." Not arguing, I'm genuinely confused as to what the difference is. Both of those groups are easily identifiable just by appearance. Both of them suffer from racism, and are targeted based on their appearance. Neither of them can change their appearance. Why do you think these two groups experience racism differently? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand? I do understand the point about visibility and yes, racism can manifest differently depending on how someone is perceived. But what Abbott did was more than describe difference, she ranked the experience, suggesting some forms of racism are not really racism at all, and that is the issue people have with what she wrote. If Jews or Travellers are being singled out, targeted, or attacked because of their identity, that is racism, not prejudice. That is where she caused the backlash. She is entitled to her opinion. Agree or disagree. As a black person that's quite possibly how she feels. Rightly or wrongly. It might be a subjective not objective view. But that is her perception of what she experiences or has witnessed. If she calls racism towards certain groups, prejudice when it is in fact racism, she is very wrong. The interview she was suspended for she doesn’t. At all." I understood she was suspended for saying she had no regrets, effectively dropping the apology she had previously given? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Therefore our experience moving through the world is different as the threat of racism exists in different ways. For example I cannot hide the colour of my skin. It is instantly and easily identifiable. This is not the case for all people who experience racism. That’s a fairly obvious point. And it quite obviously makes our experiences very different moving through the world. This is a point made by a Black woman, pointing out the obviousness of her lived experience and people who don’t live as Black people are telling her it’s not true or unfair. The fact that racism based on the colour of your skin will happen differently and will occur differently to someone who experiences racism not based on the colour of their skin should be such an obviously simple thing to understand? I do understand the point about visibility and yes, racism can manifest differently depending on how someone is perceived. But what Abbott did was more than describe difference, she ranked the experience, suggesting some forms of racism are not really racism at all, and that is the issue people have with what she wrote. If Jews or Travellers are being singled out, targeted, or attacked because of their identity, that is racism, not prejudice. That is where she caused the backlash. The interview she gave recently for which she was suspended she did not say that. Asked about her observer comments (a separate incident which she was suspended for) she said "I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. "I just... I don't know why people would say that." The entire clip is on her Twitter if you haven’t heard it. " I will find it later and have a listen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. I can’t believe you are actually comparing religiously mandated clothing or hair to skin colour and you don’t see the ridiculousness. Arguing just for the sake of it. " Not ridiculous at all and a valid point as a Hasidic outfit is as glaringly obvious as to identity as is skin colour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. I can’t believe you are actually comparing religiously mandated clothing or hair to skin colour and you don’t see the ridiculousness. Arguing just for the sake of it. Not ridiculous at all and a valid point as a Hasidic outfit is as glaringly obvious as to identity as is skin colour. " You are not born wearing an outfit; you are born with your skin colour. A person can change or decide what to wear, a person can even change their religious beliefs. A black person can't change their skin colour. Not sure if you are deliberately trying to miss the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. I can’t believe you are actually comparing religiously mandated clothing or hair to skin colour and you don’t see the ridiculousness. Arguing just for the sake of it. Not ridiculous at all and a valid point as a Hasidic outfit is as glaringly obvious as to identity as is skin colour. You are not born wearing an outfit; you are born with your skin colour. A person can change or decide what to wear, a person can even change their religious beliefs. A black person can't change their skin colour. Not sure if you are deliberately trying to miss the point." And to add to that, children are targets of such horrific racist abuse. Example- Harry and Megan’s new born baby being compared to a monkey by a promise well known journalist. The point that skin colour is a factor which makes the experience of racism different is not one which should be that controversial. Very strange though that people are so against the suggestion from a Black woman about her lived experience, which is agreed with by many Black people including Black Jews, is being attacked and dismissed as untrue. We live it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Very strange though that people are so against the suggestion from a Black woman about her lived experience..." The exact problem is that she had previously gone beyond her own lived experience, to minimise the lived experience of others. She actively denied that certain other groups were capable of suffering from racism. Nobody in the world would complain (well, maybe several racists) if she said "being black, I suffer from a unique type of racism and specific challenges from society. It includes...". That's 100% correct. She owns all of that narrative. She backtracked on her apology to "They undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable"... Which was a silly move, politically. She really doesn't mean any malice whatsoever, but it clearly offended some. It's better to highlight your own trauma without taking away from others' and, as a politician, she should've known better. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. " Because a person of colour can be shouted racist abuse at from a racist across the street who has seen them from distance. Or from someone driving a past un a car. It happened frequently to me in the 70s and 80s but as lessened as Britain became less openly racist. Unless the other groups she mentioned are wearing something to identify them as being from that group, they can in a lot of cases pass for a native white person. I mean how many of the Israeli's we see on TV look middle Eastern. Obviously once identified then the experience of hatred is the same. But her point of being more visibly out there is valid. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Because a person of colour can be shouted racist abuse at from a racist across the street who has seen them from distance. Or from someone driving a past un a car. It happened frequently to me in the 70s and 80s but as lessened as Britain became less openly racist. Unless the other groups she mentioned are wearing something to identify them as being from that group, they can in a lot of cases pass for a native white person. I mean how many of the Israeli's we see on TV look middle Eastern. Obviously once identified then the experience of hatred is the same. But her point of being more visibly out there is valid. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend. " That is not the point of contention. It was her downplaying of racism towards Jews and Travellers as prejudice, and not racism that caused the backlash. She was careful in the interview that stirred this back up not to use prejudice, however the new controversy is she said had no regrets about the letter, which is being taken as removal of the apology she had made previously. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Because a person of colour can be shouted racist abuse at from a racist across the street who has seen them from distance. Or from someone driving a past un a car. It happened frequently to me in the 70s and 80s but as lessened as Britain became less openly racist. Unless the other groups she mentioned are wearing something to identify them as being from that group, they can in a lot of cases pass for a native white person. I mean how many of the Israeli's we see on TV look middle Eastern. Obviously once identified then the experience of hatred is the same. But her point of being more visibly out there is valid. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend. That is not the point of contention. It was her downplaying of racism towards Jews and Travellers as prejudice, and not racism that caused the backlash. She was careful in the interview that stirred this back up not to use prejudice, however the new controversy is she said had no regrets about the letter, which is being taken as removal of the apology she had made previously. " The way Diane has been treated for years and continues to be is the most blatant example of misogynoir I can think of tbh and the way people are jumping through hoops to pretend her interview was worthy of suspension is... yeah. She clearly has reworded in interview her sentiment from the letter but maintains that the experience of racism we face is different. I’ve listened to it. It’s clear. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Because a person of colour can be shouted racist abuse at from a racist across the street who has seen them from distance. Or from someone driving a past un a car. It happened frequently to me in the 70s and 80s but as lessened as Britain became less openly racist. Unless the other groups she mentioned are wearing something to identify them as being from that group, they can in a lot of cases pass for a native white person. I mean how many of the Israeli's we see on TV look middle Eastern. Obviously once identified then the experience of hatred is the same. But her point of being more visibly out there is valid. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend. That is not the point of contention. It was her downplaying of racism towards Jews and Travellers as prejudice, and not racism that caused the backlash. She was careful in the interview that stirred this back up not to use prejudice, however the new controversy is she said had no regrets about the letter, which is being taken as removal of the apology she had made previously. The way Diane has been treated for years and continues to be is the most blatant example of misogynoir I can think of tbh and the way people are jumping through hoops to pretend her interview was worthy of suspension is... yeah. She clearly has reworded in interview her sentiment from the letter but maintains that the experience of racism we face is different. I’ve listened to it. It’s clear. " I have listened to it too, she didn't double down on prejudice, however the no regrets comment plays into the story being blown up. There should be a swift investigation, and I would be surprised if it didn't go her way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Because a person of colour can be shouted racist abuse at from a racist across the street who has seen them from distance. Or from someone driving a past un a car. It happened frequently to me in the 70s and 80s but as lessened as Britain became less openly racist. Unless the other groups she mentioned are wearing something to identify them as being from that group, they can in a lot of cases pass for a native white person. I mean how many of the Israeli's we see on TV look middle Eastern. Obviously once identified then the experience of hatred is the same. But her point of being more visibly out there is valid. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend. That is not the point of contention. It was her downplaying of racism towards Jews and Travellers as prejudice, and not racism that caused the backlash. She was careful in the interview that stirred this back up not to use prejudice, however the new controversy is she said had no regrets about the letter, which is being taken as removal of the apology she had made previously. " Well if you read the thread it does seem a point of contention. Even from your earlier posts. I am right of centre in my politics, but it seems when Diane Abott say something it is forensically examined for get you line by the media. While what some Tories said while in power e.g Braverman, Patel and others about Muslims and other minorities gets a they didn't really mean that treatment. Even when using openly bigoted language. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Because a person of colour can be shouted racist abuse at from a racist across the street who has seen them from distance. Or from someone driving a past un a car. It happened frequently to me in the 70s and 80s but as lessened as Britain became less openly racist. Unless the other groups she mentioned are wearing something to identify them as being from that group, they can in a lot of cases pass for a native white person. I mean how many of the Israeli's we see on TV look middle Eastern. Obviously once identified then the experience of hatred is the same. But her point of being more visibly out there is valid. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend. That is not the point of contention. It was her downplaying of racism towards Jews and Travellers as prejudice, and not racism that caused the backlash. She was careful in the interview that stirred this back up not to use prejudice, however the new controversy is she said had no regrets about the letter, which is being taken as removal of the apology she had made previously. Well if you read the thread it does seem a point of contention. Even from your earlier posts. I am right of centre in my politics, but it seems when Diane Abott say something it is forensically examined for get you line by the media. While what some Tories said while in power e.g Braverman, Patel and others about Muslims and other minorities gets a they didn't really mean that treatment. Even when using openly bigoted language. " She would have been fine if she had left one group out of it. Just stuck to gingers and Travellers. Silly women she should have known better at her age. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The way Diane has been treated for years and continues to be is the most blatant example of misogynoir I can think of tbh and the way people are jumping through hoops to pretend her interview was worthy of suspension is... yeah. " This isn't suspension material. It's foot-in-mouth, to which some politicians are extra-susceptible, mixed in with a little tone deafness and some dodgy history. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. I can’t believe you are actually comparing religiously mandated clothing or hair to skin colour and you don’t see the ridiculousness. Arguing just for the sake of it. Not ridiculous at all and a valid point as a Hasidic outfit is as glaringly obvious as to identity as is skin colour. You are not born wearing an outfit; you are born with your skin colour. A person can change or decide what to wear, a person can even change their religious beliefs. A black person can't change their skin colour. Not sure if you are deliberately trying to miss the point. And to add to that, children are targets of such horrific racist abuse. Example- Harry and Megan’s new born baby being compared to a monkey by a promise well known journalist. The point that skin colour is a factor which makes the experience of racism different is not one which should be that controversial. Very strange though that people are so against the suggestion from a Black woman about her lived experience, which is agreed with by many Black people including Black Jews, is being attacked and dismissed as untrue. We live it. " "We live it". So do Jews. It's all in: UK Board of Deputies Report: Commission on Antisemitism July 2025. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Black people experience different forms of racism. Completely agreed. Each form of racism has its own history, manifestation and outcomes. It’s such an obvious point. Indeed. That's probably why people are so confused about why anger is being directed towards Diane Abbott. Blackness is so much more visible and always present than sometimes white passing identities. Ooh... Now you're entering dangerous territory. Not least because you're getting into "who has it worse". There are many measures for this - frequency, outcomes (absolute or per capita). It's a bit silly for one group of persecuted people to compare their experience against other groups, where the key message is "you don't have it as bad as us". This will always cause emotive and vehement disagreement. It's even more dangerous where people who have never suffered racism to wade in to these discussions with their own opinions. If you can’t understand this you have a mental problem with reality. Ah. There we have it. The point made by Abbott was not about who has it worse. Just simply pointing out that the experience is different and at times needs to be differentiated. Especially seen as people love to group ‘poc’ or ‘BAME’ together. How is it different? If someone is going to be racist, the act of targeting someone whether it’s because of their skin colour, religion, or ethnicity, they’re singling someone out with hate and prejudice. It can happen in many different ways, however the intent is still to treat them as lesser. Because a person of colour can be shouted racist abuse at from a racist across the street who has seen them from distance. Or from someone driving a past un a car. It happened frequently to me in the 70s and 80s but as lessened as Britain became less openly racist. Unless the other groups she mentioned are wearing something to identify them as being from that group, they can in a lot of cases pass for a native white person. I mean how many of the Israeli's we see on TV look middle Eastern. Obviously once identified then the experience of hatred is the same. But her point of being more visibly out there is valid. I don't see what is so hard to comprehend. That is not the point of contention. It was her downplaying of racism towards Jews and Travellers as prejudice, and not racism that caused the backlash. She was careful in the interview that stirred this back up not to use prejudice, however the new controversy is she said had no regrets about the letter, which is being taken as removal of the apology she had made previously. Well if you read the thread it does seem a point of contention. Even from your earlier posts. I am right of centre in my politics, but it seems when Diane Abott say something it is forensically examined for get you line by the media. While what some Tories said while in power e.g Braverman, Patel and others about Muslims and other minorities gets a they didn't really mean that treatment. Even when using openly bigoted language. " Lets not get side tracked here, she messed up with the original letter, there is no argument to persuade me she didn't. However, she has not doubled down as I said and she avoided calling other types of racism, prejudice. I would not expect an investigation to find her against her this time, if it does I do believe she has a point of the labour party having it in for her. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well the clear difference is that most Black people are easily identified and targeted based on the colour of our skin. Orthodox Jews are easy to identify from a distance due to their religiously mandated clothing. They can't hide who they are, and are targeted based on their appearance. I can’t believe you are actually comparing religiously mandated clothing or hair to skin colour and you don’t see the ridiculousness. Arguing just for the sake of it. Not ridiculous at all and a valid point as a Hasidic outfit is as glaringly obvious as to identity as is skin colour. You are not born wearing an outfit; you are born with your skin colour. A person can change or decide what to wear, a person can even change their religious beliefs. A black person can't change their skin colour. Not sure if you are deliberately trying to miss the point. And to add to that, children are targets of such horrific racist abuse. Example- Harry and Megan’s new born baby being compared to a monkey by a promise well known journalist. The point that skin colour is a factor which makes the experience of racism different is not one which should be that controversial. Very strange though that people are so against the suggestion from a Black woman about her lived experience, which is agreed with by many Black people including Black Jews, is being attacked and dismissed as untrue. We live it. "We live it". So do Jews. It's all in: UK Board of Deputies Report: Commission on Antisemitism July 2025." Well I’m talking about the experiences of BLACK people with antiBlackness. So the only Jews that live that are Black Jews. The we live it is clearly about that.
But any excuse | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. " Why? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why?" Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala " I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought." You need to read Akala, listen to his songs. Might broaden your mind set and make sense | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought. You need to read Akala, listen to his songs. Might broaden your mind set and make sense " I can only go off what is presented on the screen written by yourself. Hold on do you find it appealing sexy even or not, at black and brown death | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought. You need to read Akala, listen to his songs. Might broaden your mind set and make sense I can only go off what is presented on the screen written by yourself. Hold on do you find it appealing sexy even or not, at black and brown death" Personally no!! But you definitely need to read Akala to understand the quote. And why it is relevant to the silence surrounding the deaths of Palestinians | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought. You need to read Akala, listen to his songs. Might broaden your mind set and make sense I can only go off what is presented on the screen written by yourself. Hold on do you find it appealing sexy even or not, at black and brown death Personally no!! But you definitely need to read Akala to understand the quote. And why it is relevant to the silence surrounding the deaths of Palestinians " Nothing more appealing than a black and brown death, I'll take it how I see it a disgusting remark. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought. You need to read Akala, listen to his songs. Might broaden your mind set and make sense I can only go off what is presented on the screen written by yourself. Hold on do you find it appealing sexy even or not, at black and brown death Personally no!! But you definitely need to read Akala to understand the quote. And why it is relevant to the silence surrounding the deaths of Palestinians Nothing more appealing than a black and brown death, I'll take it how I see it a disgusting remark." Yeah faux outrage at a quote 
Instead of doing any leg work about the quote or the person just outrage.
Says a lot about you and what your trying to do! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah faux outrage at a quote
Instead of doing any leg work about the quote or the person just outrage.
Says a lot about you and what your trying to do!"In the context of this thread, your (out of context) post was trolling for a reaction. You got one. Congratulations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought. You need to read Akala, listen to his songs. Might broaden your mind set and make sense I can only go off what is presented on the screen written by yourself. Hold on do you find it appealing sexy even or not, at black and brown death Personally no!! But you definitely need to read Akala to understand the quote. And why it is relevant to the silence surrounding the deaths of Palestinians Nothing more appealing than a black and brown death, I'll take it how I see it a disgusting remark. Yeah faux outrage at a quote
Instead of doing any leg work about the quote or the person just outrage.
Says a lot about you and what your trying to do!"Says the,,,,, man,, who spits out quotes pushing an agenda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah faux outrage at a quote
Instead of doing any leg work about the quote or the person just outrage.
Says a lot about you and what your trying to do!
In the context of this thread, your (out of context) post was trolling for a reaction. You got one. Congratulations."You have Google, I've given the quote and the author. You can do leg work and see how it is actually prevalent to the silence surrounding the Palestinians | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"White passing is a thing. And yes it provides privilege (and choice) over non-white passing people. This should not be controversial. Somehow it is, I think we all know why 20 months into a genocide. Why? Nothing sexier than black and brown death - Akala I am struggling to see how that is appealing. Do you crack one off at the thought. You need to read Akala, listen to his songs. Might broaden your mind set and make sense I can only go off what is presented on the screen written by yourself. Hold on do you find it appealing sexy even or not, at black and brown death Personally no!! But you definitely need to read Akala to understand the quote. And why it is relevant to the silence surrounding the deaths of Palestinians Nothing more appealing than a black and brown death, I'll take it how I see it a disgusting remark. Yeah faux outrage at a quote
Instead of doing any leg work about the quote or the person just outrage.
Says a lot about you and what your trying to do!
Says the,,,,, man,, who spits out quotes pushing an agenda."What's my agenda? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah faux outrage at a quote
Instead of doing any leg work about the quote or the person just outrage.
Says a lot about you and what your trying to do!
In the context of this thread, your (out of context) post was trolling for a reaction. You got one. Congratulations.
You have Google, I've given the quote and the author.
You can do leg work and see how it is actually prevalent to the silence surrounding the Palestinians "That's the issue, hence "out of context". If you post something informatory out of context on a public forum, don't expect everyone to fully understand the reference or be so conceited to believe that 50 people should go off and "do their own research" - you're not a teacher setting homework. People will take it at face value. There's your lesson for the day, Padawan. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Repeating quotes and pushing your race baiting agenda." On a thread about Diane Abbott's suspension......about race....WTF else was it going to be? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yeah faux outrage at a quote
Instead of doing any leg work about the quote or the person just outrage.
Says a lot about you and what your trying to do!
In the context of this thread, your (out of context) post was trolling for a reaction. You got one. Congratulations.
You have Google, I've given the quote and the author.
You can do leg work and see how it is actually prevalent to the silence surrounding the Palestinians
That's the issue, hence "out of context". If you post something informatory out of context on a public forum, don't expect everyone to fully understand the reference or be so conceited to believe that 50 people should go off and "do their own research" - you're not a teacher setting homework. People will take it at face value. There's your lesson for the day, Padawan."If your going to comment on a quote, that was plainly given as a quote that you don't understand....isn't it the normal reaction to Google how that quote relates? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If your going to comment on a quote, that was plainly given as a quote that you don't understand....isn't it the normal reaction to Google how that quote relates?" Clearly not. Welcome to the diverse world of humanity. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If your going to comment on a quote, that was plainly given as a quote that you don't understand....isn't it the normal reaction to Google how that quote relates? Clearly not. Welcome to the diverse world of humanity." For the hard of thinking and unwilling to learn.... sure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If your going to comment on a quote, that was plainly given as a quote that you don't understand....isn't it the normal reaction to Google how that quote relates? Clearly not. Welcome to the diverse world of humanity. For the hard of thinking and unwilling to learn.... sure " I'll buy you a t shirt with that quote splashed across it for you to wear and explain to the questioning public, I'll have them put 'Google it' on the back to save you explaining. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or, you might want to learn ....then again " I'm serious I will buy you a t shirt with that quote on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Or, you might want to learn ....then again I'm serious I will buy you a t shirt with that quote on it." Easier than expanding your mind | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
