Turn on thread page Beta

Being anti-racist... watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dangle)
    Yeah, I don't bother with persuading others because they usually know the arguments against it anyway but carry on. However, I do step-in and comment if I, say, walk into a conversation with racist remarks (albeit even in 'jest') being thrown around.
    You're right that they know the arguments but often people just don't think about what they're saying. If the person was not going to be convinced I wouldn't waste my breath. And if they were joking and clearly joking I wouldn't stop them - I don't find racism in that form offensive when it isn't meant to be racist. I never get offended about jokes made against me when they are of that form - it's humour. If you can't laugh at it then there's more likely something wrong with you than with them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    You're right that they know the arguments but often people just don't think about what they're saying. If the person was not going to be convinced I wouldn't waste my breath. And if they were joking and clearly joking I wouldn't stop them - I don't find racism in that form offensive when it isn't meant to be racist. I never get offended about jokes made against me when they are of that form - it's humour. If you can't laugh at it then there's more likely something wrong with you than with them.
    It wasn't so much the humour but an outwardly racist remark being said even light-heartedly. It was mainly poor wording on my part ;no;
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dangle)
    It wasn't so much the humour but an outwardly racist remark being said even light-heartedly.
    Well it all comes down to context and the individual scenario, doesn't it.
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    Erm, surely most people who aren't racist are anti-racist? I've never met a non-racist person who supports racism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Well it all comes down to context and the individual scenario, doesn't it?
    As do most things in life. Quick judgement isn't always a virtue.

    EDIT: But what I was getting at was that 'humour' and 'light-heartedly' are two different things. People often think its okay to say an 'off-the-cuff' remark that would be deemed offensive because they don't really mean it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gilliwoo)
    Being relatively advantaged in all senses, I can't really comment in the first person. But I have seen grown men brought to tears from the humiliation, injustice and harm that racism causes. It compromises the dignity of another human being on the basis of something they didn't choose, and doesn't really affect their behaviour. Now, we have all been bullied, picked on, humiliated, ostracised, had injustice done us etc at some point or another. This alone - being able to identify with those emotions - to me justifies anti-racism as a fundamental moral stance. But, those of us who're not perpetually minorities have a way out. These things tend to happen to most of us infrequently. But when it happens over, and over, and over again, the psychological effect must be intolerable. Noone has the right to make other to feel so negatively conscious of their own skin, and to turn what should be an adjective - skin colour - into a noun. When you poke fun at a fat person, it's "a laugh" for you, but it really hits home to them.
    Yes; being ginger can tend to suck, at times.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Yes; being ginger can tend to suck, at times.
    ;console; You're not like other gingers though, so don't take it too personally
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dangle)
    As do most things in life. Quick judgement isn't always a virtue.

    EDIT: But what I was getting at was that 'humour' and 'light-heartedly' are two different things. People often think its okay to say an 'off-the-cuff' remark that would be deemed offensive because they don't really mean it.
    In my view it depends more on the intent than on the effect. There will always be people who are offended by things and there will always be people ready to make a fuss over nothing. If it isn't meant in an offensive way then it shouldn't be made a big deal of. If, of course, the comment is extraordinarily offensive then an apology is due even if it wasn't meant as such. Just as if I accidentally broke a priceless vase, for a bad example.

    It really does depend on the situation and there are definitely people out there who are too sensitive and people who just want to find racist comments to make capital out of it. And then there are people who get offended on other people's behalf which is worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    In my view it depends more on the intent than on the effect.
    That's not always good enough. All intent does is to remove the factor of malevolence in offensive comments and actions, but it doesn't altogether neutralise the offence. Much offence can be anticipated - for example, where the content or subject matter can arouse passionate feelings - and where this is the case, intent isn't a good enough defence. You committed an offensive action and hoped the other party wouldn't be offended. There's thus a difference in a person walking into a mosque with shoes on, unaware of the potential for offence, and a person who does it but hopes people will see the ufnny side. I'm afraid a lot of offensive jokes fall in the latter group.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    If it isn't meant in an offensive way then it shouldn't be made a big deal of.
    I'd say that entirely depends on the situation. I suppose you're aiming your posts at the 'PC Brigade' type people that make a fuss out of anything, which I do generally agree with you on. But if someone says something offensive that, no matter whether they thought it offensive or not, insulted people that it applied to, I don't think it should be cast aside as nothing "just because they didn't mean it". Yeah, don't make a big deal out of it (fair enough there) but you can't just brush it aside as a nothing matter either.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blackswan)
    Do you think that people who are anti-racist are anti-racist because they have been subjected of racism in the past?
    or they're just nice people ?
    I think they're just nice people. I haven't been disadvantaged by sexism, especially sexism against women, but I despise it anyway. One needn't be negatively affected by something to be against it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gilliwoo)
    That's not always good enough. All intent does is to remove the factor of malevolence in offensive comments and actions, but it doesn't altogether neutralise the offence. Much offence can be anticipated - for example, where the content or subject matter can arouse passionate feelings - and where this is the case, intent isn't a good enough defence. You committed an offensive action and hoped the other party wouldn't be offended. There's thus a difference in a person walking into a mosque with shoes on, unaware of the potential for offence, and a person who does it but hopes people will see the ufnny side. I'm afraid a lot of offensive jokes fall in the latter group.
    My point is only that the offence taken should reflect the intent. If the intent is not to offend then people should bear that in mind when they respond. Of course, if it is offensive then it should be dealt with, but a simple apology should also suffice. So it depends entirely on the individual scenario and no blanket rule can be applied. However, in general terms people are way too quick to take offence.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    in general terms people are way too quick to take offence.
    And some people are way to quick to open their mouths and speak before considering wha they're about to say.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    My point is only that the offence taken should reflect the intent.
    I agree that knowledge of intent could mitigate the offence. But perceiving something as offensive and bearing ill-will to the offender are again, different things. If A person whacks me in the head with a cricket bat in error (this has happened), I still perceive it as painful, but I bear no ill-will to the person who struck me if it is an accident. If it is an avoidable accident, I'm not so sure I still owe him that moral reprieve.

    However, in general terms people are way too quick to take offence.
    People get tired of continually being the butt of tasteless jokes.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blackswan)
    I personally have never/rarely been racially disadvantaged or abused or whatever, and I have no issues with racist people. I'm a big believer in doing and thinking what you like, who cares if it's politically correct or not...each to his own. But I was wondering this question :

    Do you think that people who are anti-racist are anti-racist because they have been subjected of racism in the past?
    or they're just nice people ?
    Or are they just very desperate to fit into today's orthodoxy. Let's be honest now - it's very fashionable to be "right on" isn't it? Especially for students. Who could afford to be without those right-on (pro multi-culturalism, homosexual friendly etc) credentials?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gilliwoo)
    I agree that knowledge of intent could mitigate the offence. But perceiving something as offensive and bearing ill-will to the offender are again, different things. If A person whacks me in the head with a cricket bat in error (this has happened), I still perceive it as painful, but I bear no ill-will to the person who struck me if it is an accident. If it is an avoidable accident, I'm not so sure I still owe him that moral reprieve.


    People get tired of continually being the butt of tasteless jokes.
    But in either case would you consider chasing him through court for compensation?

    Everything is a question of degree and it seems to me that people blow things out of proportion.

    To take an example I can comment on: Ken Livingstone vs that Evening Standard bloke. Was it offensive - yeah. Was it meant to be offensive - probably not that much. Was it the heinous crime of the century deserving of hounding Ken through courts and having him suspended - certainly not. People made a mountain out of molehill over it. A simple apology should have been issued (OK, Ken refused which didn't help) but people were to quick to shout "Ken's anti-Semitic" because of it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    But in either case would you consider chasing him through court for compensation?

    Everything is a question of degree and it seems to me that people blow things out of proportion.

    To take an example I can comment on: Ken Livingstone vs that Evening Standard bloke. Was it offensive - yeah. Was it meant to be offensive - probably not that much. Was it the heinous crime of the century deserving of hounding Ken through courts and having him suspended - certainly not. People made a mountain out of molehill over it. A simple apology should have been issued (OK, Ken refused which didn't help) but people were to quick to shout "Ken's anti-Semitic" because of it.
    He should have apologised if he didn't want the bigoted label attached to himself. You don't know how things would have turned out had he realised the impact of his comments and apologised. He has the freedom of speech to say pretty much what he likes, but with that right comes the right of other people to criticise and label you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    But in either case would you consider chasing him through court for compensation?

    Everything is a question of degree and it seems to me that people blow things out of proportion.

    To take an example I can comment on: Ken Livingstone vs that Evening Standard bloke. Was it offensive - yeah. Was it meant to be offensive - probably not that much. Was it the heinous crime of the century deserving of hounding Ken through courts and having him suspended - certainly not. People made a mountain out of molehill over it. A simple apology should have been issued (OK, Ken refused which didn't help) but people were to quick to shout "Ken's anti-Semitic" because of it.
    A giant, having failed to look where he's going, trips and falls; four-hundred people are crushed (and, consequently, die) by the colossal impact.

    Mountain out of a molehill?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gilliwoo)
    ;console; You're not like other gingers though, so don't take it too personally
    I'm a 'daywalker' or, as I like to put it, 'pedigree ginge'.

    Unfortunately, boors don't tend to respect this distinction.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1.9.8.4.)
    He should have apologised if he didn't want the bigoted label attached to himself. You don't know how things would have turned out had he realised the impact of his comments and apologised. He has the freedom of speech to say pretty much what he likes, but with that right comes the right of other people to criticise and label you.
    I'm not arguing with that - only saying that it was blown out of proportion into some sort of proof that Ken is an anti-Semite.

    Anyone would think I'm advocating racism rather than what I am doing which is advocating common sense. Perhaps I just have a thicker skin than others, I don't know, but it does seem that a lot of what is "offensive" these days really isn't - just have a look at the thread about the "offensive" t-shirt in Peterborough.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.