FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Diane Abbott suspended
Diane Abbott suspended
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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? | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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? | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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".... | |||
"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. | |||
"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 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? | |||
"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.......... | |||
| |||
"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? | |||
"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....... | |||
"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 ? | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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!) | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 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. | |||
"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 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. | |||
"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  | |||
| |||
"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 | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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). | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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? | |||
"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 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 | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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 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. | |||
"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? | |||
"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 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. | |||
"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 | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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 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. | |||
"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  | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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! | |||
"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 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. | |||
"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 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 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 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. | |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
| |||
| |||
"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. | |||
| |||
"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. | |||
"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. | |||
