Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
The Truth Is Out At Last.
64 Answers
http://
And these words have not been spoken by some Far-Right racist bigoted fascist, these are the words of the former chairman of Commission for Racial Equality who also happens to be black, so surely there is no reason for anyone to disbelieve him, can they?
And these words have not been spoken by some Far-Right racist bigoted fascist, these are the words of the former chairman of Commission for Racial Equality who also happens to be black, so surely there is no reason for anyone to disbelieve him, can they?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A reference for you YMF
Anyone with 1/2 oz of sense realizes that pushing any topic into the taboo list creates distrust, misinformation and ill feeling.
I goggled " function of taboo" and got
https:/
function of taboo in the regulatory process -
By the way - long-word-alert, in the article, that is! and also sorry for the lack of - " ... and we will all be nurdered in our beds!" which is usual in these threads
Anyone with 1/2 oz of sense realizes that pushing any topic into the taboo list creates distrust, misinformation and ill feeling.
I goggled " function of taboo" and got
https:/
function of taboo in the regulatory process -
By the way - long-word-alert, in the article, that is! and also sorry for the lack of - " ... and we will all be nurdered in our beds!" which is usual in these threads
YMF do you realize how posts like that make you look. And the look is not clever.
oops someone has already said that - - you !
hier stehe, ich kann nicht anders
Oh and for readers who wonder what this spat is about: the article is specifically on function of taboo and regulation or in other words, "... how silencing debate would harm Britain"
oops someone has already said that - - you !
hier stehe, ich kann nicht anders
Oh and for readers who wonder what this spat is about: the article is specifically on function of taboo and regulation or in other words, "... how silencing debate would harm Britain"
-- answer removed --
AOG
I would ask whether the question ought to be 'disagree' rather than 'disbelieve'.
I think that Mr Phillips makes some very valid points and has pointed out some very disturbing truths about all[i races that people are loathe to confront (see his comments on the causes of crime for white, black and Asians - uncomfortable reading).
However, the underlying problem with any discussion of race, is that some who shout the loudest about black crime, or Asian crime are [i]indeed] racist.
And the problem is that when reasonable non-racist people join the debate, they unfortunely get tarred with the same brush.
You can tell on AB for instance, those who are genuinely decent people who want to debate race topics without resorting to stereotypes and sly slurs - and those who have an agenda to push.
The former get lumped in with the latter, and it's obvious that this is going to cause resentment.
...because it's fair to say, no-one wants to be lumped in with the knuckledraggers.
Mr Phillips' contribution is welcome in this regard.
I would ask whether the question ought to be 'disagree' rather than 'disbelieve'.
I think that Mr Phillips makes some very valid points and has pointed out some very disturbing truths about all[i races that people are loathe to confront (see his comments on the causes of crime for white, black and Asians - uncomfortable reading).
However, the underlying problem with any discussion of race, is that some who shout the loudest about black crime, or Asian crime are [i]indeed] racist.
And the problem is that when reasonable non-racist people join the debate, they unfortunely get tarred with the same brush.
You can tell on AB for instance, those who are genuinely decent people who want to debate race topics without resorting to stereotypes and sly slurs - and those who have an agenda to push.
The former get lumped in with the latter, and it's obvious that this is going to cause resentment.
...because it's fair to say, no-one wants to be lumped in with the knuckledraggers.
Mr Phillips' contribution is welcome in this regard.
Heres some proper knuckle draggers.
http://
http://
sp1814
You have typed many words, but haven't actually committed yourself, or pointed anyone out in particular. But however let me try and address your points.
/// However, the underlying problem with any discussion of race, is that some who shout the loudest about black crime, or Asian crime are [i]indeed]
racist. ///
Oh so if there is a particular problem with crime and it is found that it has been committed by blacks or Asians, then it should only be discussed in muted voices but if it is not, then it is quite in order to wheel the racist card out? It would seem from that, that there is no problem if the perpetrators happens to be anyone with a white skin, be them the indigenous people of these islands or from the European Continent, then it would seem that it could be shouted from the roof tops.
/// And the problem is that when reasonable non-racist people join the debate, they unfortunely get tarred with the same brush. ///
You say that, but who are these"reasonable non-racist people" and who does the tarring?
/// You can tell on AB for instance, those who are genuinely decent people who want to debate race topics without resorting to stereotypes and sly slurs - and those who have an agenda to push. ///
Then surely that can't leave many ABers left.
/// The former get lumped in with the latter, and it's obvious that this is going to cause resentment. ///
Then surely those ABers who are not genuinely decent people should be named and shamed, but who pray would do the naming, since you seem to shy away from that task?
/// ...because it's fair to say, no-one wants to be lumped in with the knuckledraggers. ///
Could it be because of that slur no one would, it is just the same as the old overused racist slur, the sole purpose of these words is frighten people into not discussing certain issues in case they are lumped in with the knuckledraggers etc. ///
Come on sp if you know who these genuine kniuckldraggers or racists are tell us all, just so the innocent are not so accused you understand?
You have typed many words, but haven't actually committed yourself, or pointed anyone out in particular. But however let me try and address your points.
/// However, the underlying problem with any discussion of race, is that some who shout the loudest about black crime, or Asian crime are [i]indeed]
racist. ///
Oh so if there is a particular problem with crime and it is found that it has been committed by blacks or Asians, then it should only be discussed in muted voices but if it is not, then it is quite in order to wheel the racist card out? It would seem from that, that there is no problem if the perpetrators happens to be anyone with a white skin, be them the indigenous people of these islands or from the European Continent, then it would seem that it could be shouted from the roof tops.
/// And the problem is that when reasonable non-racist people join the debate, they unfortunely get tarred with the same brush. ///
You say that, but who are these"reasonable non-racist people" and who does the tarring?
/// You can tell on AB for instance, those who are genuinely decent people who want to debate race topics without resorting to stereotypes and sly slurs - and those who have an agenda to push. ///
Then surely that can't leave many ABers left.
/// The former get lumped in with the latter, and it's obvious that this is going to cause resentment. ///
Then surely those ABers who are not genuinely decent people should be named and shamed, but who pray would do the naming, since you seem to shy away from that task?
/// ...because it's fair to say, no-one wants to be lumped in with the knuckledraggers. ///
Could it be because of that slur no one would, it is just the same as the old overused racist slur, the sole purpose of these words is frighten people into not discussing certain issues in case they are lumped in with the knuckledraggers etc. ///
Come on sp if you know who these genuine kniuckldraggers or racists are tell us all, just so the innocent are not so accused you understand?
AOG
Please reread what I wrote.
It is true that some who shout the loudest on race issues are indeed racist.
The problem that we now have is that too many people will default to thinking that anyone who is constantly critical of blacks and Asians is racist, because they sound like traditional racists.
It's incredibly difficult to tell the difference, as you yourself must know. Loads of people of AB have accused you of being a bigoted racist, and you have firmly stated that you are not - but the problem is, the narrative of the debate has been so firmly 'owned' by those with extreme views (both to the Left and Right), that it leaves the rest of us assuming that anyone speaking out about race is BNP/EDL/Britain First...because they have had the loudest voices over the past few years.
Please reread what I wrote.
It is true that some who shout the loudest on race issues are indeed racist.
The problem that we now have is that too many people will default to thinking that anyone who is constantly critical of blacks and Asians is racist, because they sound like traditional racists.
It's incredibly difficult to tell the difference, as you yourself must know. Loads of people of AB have accused you of being a bigoted racist, and you have firmly stated that you are not - but the problem is, the narrative of the debate has been so firmly 'owned' by those with extreme views (both to the Left and Right), that it leaves the rest of us assuming that anyone speaking out about race is BNP/EDL/Britain First...because they have had the loudest voices over the past few years.
AOG
You wrote:
Oh so if there is a particular problem with crime and it is found that it has been committed by blacks or Asians, then it should only be discussed in muted voices but if it is not, then it is quite in order to wheel the racist card out? It would seem from that, that there is no problem if the perpetrators happens to be anyone with a white skin, be them the indigenous people of these islands or from the European Continent, then it would seem that it could be shouted from the roof tops.
No, not at all.
If the matter under discussion is crime, then it should indeed be a valid subject for discussion.
The reason that some people 'smell racism' is where the same crimes committed by white people are ignored.
Remember a few years ago when there was a chap on the News section who would post exclusively on the BBC and how abhorrent the licence fee was (sometimes up to four/five times a week)?
Well, his views were perfectly valid, but after a while some of us got the feeling that it had tipped over to obsession, and that was a problem because whenever he subsequently posted, some of us had already judged his points based on what we (thought) we knew about him.
I suspect that where someone concentrates his or her questions on the basis of being critical of black people, Asians or gay people...human nature will dictate that others will (unfortunately) reach certain conclusions.
I'll try to get to your other points shortly...
You wrote:
Oh so if there is a particular problem with crime and it is found that it has been committed by blacks or Asians, then it should only be discussed in muted voices but if it is not, then it is quite in order to wheel the racist card out? It would seem from that, that there is no problem if the perpetrators happens to be anyone with a white skin, be them the indigenous people of these islands or from the European Continent, then it would seem that it could be shouted from the roof tops.
No, not at all.
If the matter under discussion is crime, then it should indeed be a valid subject for discussion.
The reason that some people 'smell racism' is where the same crimes committed by white people are ignored.
Remember a few years ago when there was a chap on the News section who would post exclusively on the BBC and how abhorrent the licence fee was (sometimes up to four/five times a week)?
Well, his views were perfectly valid, but after a while some of us got the feeling that it had tipped over to obsession, and that was a problem because whenever he subsequently posted, some of us had already judged his points based on what we (thought) we knew about him.
I suspect that where someone concentrates his or her questions on the basis of being critical of black people, Asians or gay people...human nature will dictate that others will (unfortunately) reach certain conclusions.
I'll try to get to your other points shortly...
Latest Posts
Technology1 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News6 mins ago
