Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Subconcious Racism Or Valid Precaution?
190 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
Personally I can see both sides.
Without being there, and knowing the woman's past, it is impossible to make a call, still no surprise the keyboard warriors dont let that get in the way of their judgement. Good job we dont have kangaroo courts in this country.
And, just because you havent had anyone intervene doenst mean it does not happen. Not everyone will intervene, even coppers run away sometimes as seen recently.
Without being there, and knowing the woman's past, it is impossible to make a call, still no surprise the keyboard warriors dont let that get in the way of their judgement. Good job we dont have kangaroo courts in this country.
And, just because you havent had anyone intervene doenst mean it does not happen. Not everyone will intervene, even coppers run away sometimes as seen recently.
Naomi -
Andy-hughes, //When you make an appalling slur against me as a father,//
What appalling slur? I said you didn’t give birth to your children. What’s appalling about that? You didn’t. Or did you just want to cause a row again. You’re on your own if you do. //
Stop weaselling with your selective editing.
What you said was -
// Perhaps you don't feel your children belong to you because you didn't give birth to them. Who knows? //
Since no man gives birth to any of his children, (sorry if you need a lesson in basic biology, maybe you need educating in that as well) you are clearly pointing to my relatinship with my step-children and inferring that my relationship with them is different because I am not biologically connected to them.
It was nasty, it was off-thread, and I not indulging your pathetic attempts to slide out of your responsibility for your post.
It's there, I am not adding to it.
Back to the thread.
Andy-hughes, //When you make an appalling slur against me as a father,//
What appalling slur? I said you didn’t give birth to your children. What’s appalling about that? You didn’t. Or did you just want to cause a row again. You’re on your own if you do. //
Stop weaselling with your selective editing.
What you said was -
// Perhaps you don't feel your children belong to you because you didn't give birth to them. Who knows? //
Since no man gives birth to any of his children, (sorry if you need a lesson in basic biology, maybe you need educating in that as well) you are clearly pointing to my relatinship with my step-children and inferring that my relationship with them is different because I am not biologically connected to them.
It was nasty, it was off-thread, and I not indulging your pathetic attempts to slide out of your responsibility for your post.
It's there, I am not adding to it.
Back to the thread.
andy-hughes
Put yourself in his position, if the same thing had happened to you, would you had bothered to take out your cell phone so as to record your experience in such a way, least all going to the trouble to post in a series of Facebook Live videos?
/// Mr Lewis documented parts of the experience in a series of Facebook Live videos which have been viewed more than 600,000 times. ///
Put yourself in his position, if the same thing had happened to you, would you had bothered to take out your cell phone so as to record your experience in such a way, least all going to the trouble to post in a series of Facebook Live videos?
/// Mr Lewis documented parts of the experience in a series of Facebook Live videos which have been viewed more than 600,000 times. ///
YMB - // Without being there, and knowing the woman's past, it is impossible to make a call, still no surprise the keyboard warriors dont let that get in the way of their judgement. Good job we dont have kangaroo courts in this country. //
The only 'judgement' I or anyone else has made, is that this woman is a racist, and I believe the evidence available backs up that view.
The only 'judgement' I or anyone else has made, is that this woman is a racist, and I believe the evidence available backs up that view.
AOG - // Put yourself in his position, if the same thing had happened to you, would you had bothered to take out your cell phone so as to record your experience in such a way, least all going to the trouble to post in a series of Facebook Live videos? //
As a black man in a southern state with a white woman inferring that I am a criminal? You're dead right I would film and post - I'd want all the defence I could get!!
As a black man in a southern state with a white woman inferring that I am a criminal? You're dead right I would film and post - I'd want all the defence I could get!!
There are several times when I've seen young children apparently on their own, and in each case I try to check around to see where their carer is. If this takes a while then I'll observe from a distance as long as it takes to be satisfied that the kids are in no danger. It's quite right and proper for people to be concerned about possible risks to children.
On the other hand, my observations instantly end when (as always happens) the kids' obvious carers show up. It doesn't take long to tell who they are because the children are comfortable around them and there's nothing forced about the interaction.
Common sense tells you that the same thing should have happened in this case: regardless of what prompted the concern (and, let's face it, Naomi's blatantly admitted that the overriding key factor for her would be the mismatch in skin colour, which is by definition a racial judgement), then it should take only minimal observation for that concern to be addressed from a distance without ever having to interfere.
As to being polite and saying "thank you", while perhaps that was preferable, it's ludicrous to suggest that the onus is on the babysitter to have to explain himself. It might be noted that racial and sexual profiling is rather more common than some people care to admit -- I shouldn't wonder if after the one hundredth time of having to say "thanks for letting your racist concerns prompt you to take unnecessary action, as would have been clear if you'd actually been paying attention", it would have been harder to maintain the facade of being grateful that people see your skin colour and instantly decide on that alone that there's something fishy about you.
There are so many things the woman could have done instead to avoid the situation; since, by definition, it started when she decided to intervene, it is first and foremost up to her to shape the interaction. That could be either by watching the children discretely and realising that they are happy, which should lead her to the obvious conclusion that this man was known to the kids and they were happy around him, and therefore no further action need be taken.
Easy -- if you think about it. And, if you don't, and just act on prejudices, then it's the very definition of racism. Dress it up however you like; if you base your actions primarily on somebody's race then you are a racist.
On the other hand, my observations instantly end when (as always happens) the kids' obvious carers show up. It doesn't take long to tell who they are because the children are comfortable around them and there's nothing forced about the interaction.
Common sense tells you that the same thing should have happened in this case: regardless of what prompted the concern (and, let's face it, Naomi's blatantly admitted that the overriding key factor for her would be the mismatch in skin colour, which is by definition a racial judgement), then it should take only minimal observation for that concern to be addressed from a distance without ever having to interfere.
As to being polite and saying "thank you", while perhaps that was preferable, it's ludicrous to suggest that the onus is on the babysitter to have to explain himself. It might be noted that racial and sexual profiling is rather more common than some people care to admit -- I shouldn't wonder if after the one hundredth time of having to say "thanks for letting your racist concerns prompt you to take unnecessary action, as would have been clear if you'd actually been paying attention", it would have been harder to maintain the facade of being grateful that people see your skin colour and instantly decide on that alone that there's something fishy about you.
There are so many things the woman could have done instead to avoid the situation; since, by definition, it started when she decided to intervene, it is first and foremost up to her to shape the interaction. That could be either by watching the children discretely and realising that they are happy, which should lead her to the obvious conclusion that this man was known to the kids and they were happy around him, and therefore no further action need be taken.
Easy -- if you think about it. And, if you don't, and just act on prejudices, then it's the very definition of racism. Dress it up however you like; if you base your actions primarily on somebody's race then you are a racist.
Andy-hughes, are you quite well? You said “You can assume that white children don't 'belong to' (what an appalling phrase that is)” – to which I replied “Perhaps you don't feel your children belong to you because you didn't give birth to them. Who knows?” – and you claim that is “an appalling slur”. How ridiculous. Get a grip for goodness sake.
//Haven't you Aussies learnt anything yet? We do not describe none White persons as 'COLOURED'.//
Untrustworthy black *** may be your style AOG.
Nothing wrong with coloured down here.
I'm more coloured than the indigenous, white during winter, start with red in the summer, slowly turning brown, blue when I'm cold or sad, green when I'm envious, etc.
Untrustworthy black *** may be your style AOG.
Nothing wrong with coloured down here.
I'm more coloured than the indigenous, white during winter, start with red in the summer, slowly turning brown, blue when I'm cold or sad, green when I'm envious, etc.
Jim, //Naomi's blatantly admitted that the overriding key factor for her would be the mismatch in skin colour, which is by definition a racial judgement//
Absolutely – but not because I’m racist – but because the mismatch in skin colour is exactly that. A mismatch. Had the children been with a black woman I doubt the problem would have arisen. Men are simply less trusted.
Absolutely – but not because I’m racist – but because the mismatch in skin colour is exactly that. A mismatch. Had the children been with a black woman I doubt the problem would have arisen. Men are simply less trusted.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV10 mins ago
Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
As If The Cowards Of Hamas Have Not...
News28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.