RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote: I'll raise you one: lets us never ever have a non-white face running the White House ever again because that sort don't know how to deal with the brown people that are the source of all your angst, low level of education, and rampant opioid addiction.

Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I was having a conversation about this with a friend. I asked him about the government here being fascist. He didn't like labelling another group, which is completely fair and it's something I've agreed with all my life.

However, we have lost the last 3 elections while not calling names, while trying to find compromises and trying to talk to government supporters about their actual wants and needs. All the while, the government has been name calling, labelling us as Communists and saying we want to bring the country back to the dark ages, take the country into recession, and allow the Muslims to Islamicise our good Christian country.

So I say fuck 'em. Being reasonable has not gained us power. In fact, it has led to us being further from power than ever before.

And what country am I talking about? It could be any of them, ffs!

So fuck 'em, label them. Call them out for what they are, do not be reasonable.

You're not going to convince hardcore Trump, Brexiteers, Fidesz, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Duda, Patrick Bateman (seriously, look at fucking Kurtz, the psycho-looking chancellor of Austria) fans that they should turn their back on their "saviour". We need to start getting the people who are not voting and those on the fence. And you do that by making them so goddamn uncomfortable with the idea of being labeled a fascist for supporting this cum bucket pieces of shit that they do not vote for them.

Don't be reasonable. Call it out and be fucking unreasonable.

They are racist. They are fascist. We do not want them leading the world. You do not want to be associated with them. They're labelling us as paedos? They're the ones attending fucking Epstein parties and being given "massages" by 14 year olds.

So yeah. It's racist.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Guys, it's paranoid, xenophobic, not fit for purpose, populist and dumb, but any country can build a wall at its border if it wants. No doubt it has great appeal to racists and is the project of a racist, but unless it's a barrier which only functions according to race, I still don't see how it's anything more than nationalistic. What you're saying is not that different to saying that ALL Brexiteers are racist - it's tempting but it's not true. And it creates divisions.

I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

Also why does commentary on here need to be fit for the purposes of lobbying people thick and/or racist enough to vote for Trump?

I get telling people actually seeking to bring across members of Team Thick as Shit Racist Arseholes back into the folds of humanity they need to use inclusive language, but whilst I can't speak for everyone here I know I'm only trying to take the piss

And the right wing media hit squads begin circling:


I'm not sure whether they've left this too late to begin undermining him. He appears to be a very popular person amongst a large swathe of the British people and there's a tipping point at which attacking him will make readers dislike the paper rather than the target.

Puja

Also it's the Mail. They love people owning houses and houses going up in value, ideally not Black people but they'll take what they can get.

They do have a point that he's now coming from a position of extreme privilege, but that's not going to change the story for the Mail. Which isn't to say Rashford isn't going to need some commentary on his own tax position, and probably his thoughts on his peers dodging tax from a position of great privilege

Stom wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I was having a conversation about this with a friend. I asked him about the government here being fascist. He didn't like labelling another group, which is completely fair and it's something I've agreed with all my life.

However, we have lost the last 3 elections while not calling names, while trying to find compromises and trying to talk to government supporters about their actual wants and needs. All the while, the government has been name calling, labelling us as Communists and saying we want to bring the country back to the dark ages, take the country into recession, and allow the Muslims to Islamicise our good Christian country.

So I say fuck 'em. Being reasonable has not gained us power. In fact, it has led to us being further from power than ever before.

And what country am I talking about? It could be any of them, ffs!

So fuck 'em, label them. Call them out for what they are, do not be reasonable.

You're not going to convince hardcore Trump, Brexiteers, Fidesz, Modi, Bolsonaro, Duterte, Duda, Patrick Bateman (seriously, look at fucking Kurtz, the psycho-looking chancellor of Austria) fans that they should turn their back on their "saviour". We need to start getting the people who are not voting and those on the fence. And you do that by making them so goddamn uncomfortable with the idea of being labeled a fascist for supporting this cum bucket pieces of shit that they do not vote for them.

Don't be reasonable. Call it out and be fucking unreasonable.

They are racist. They are fascist. We do not want them leading the world. You do not want to be associated with them. They're labelling us as paedos? They're the ones attending fucking Epstein parties and being given "massages" by 14 year olds.

So yeah. It's racist.

I'm very happy to call Trump and Johnson racists. There's good evidence for it. Trump also at least a would-be fascist dictator - that's clear from the last couple of weeks.

Agreed, no one is going to convince hardcore supporters to change their views. We do indeed need to work on people in the middle, those whose views are not strongly held. Of these (in the USA) there will be quite a few who voted Trump and thought the wall was a good idea (not saying they thought too hard about it, but let's say they were happy with it). However I take the opposite view from you - I think It's not going to help convert them if you call them racists (which is pretty much what you're saying if you say the wall was a racist policy). Are they going to turn the way of people who insult them?

I totally understand the frustration with one side lying and half-truthing and conflating and the rest of it. Why don't we do the same? It's tempting.

But 1) we lose the high ground. (Not completely because we're not racists etc, but still, part of the high ground is lost.) If voters can see we're all willing to lie or bend the truth, then they can reasonably think we're all the same.

And 2), who leads us under these circumstances? Someone of little principle, someone happy to say whatever it takes to achieve a result. And then, since we have a man of little principle, we have someone we can't trust. Who can say where that will lead?
In the UK we got Tony Blair. And he gave us the shift of UK politics to the right (or the consolidation of Thatcher's shift to the right), ~1M dead in Iraq, a destabilised Middle East and motivation for a generation of terrorists.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: I'm confused at to why you're keen to draw this distinction. Any country can build a wall on its border, that's true, but if they're very openly building a wall expressly for the purpose of keeping out the brown people, I don't see how it can be anything but racist.

Puja

I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

I want to stick to the truth. The wall discriminates on the basis of nationality (ie non-US), not on race.

If you say it is racist because its purpose is to keep out non-americans (predominantly from the countries you mention, predominantly hispanic people), then so are all controls on that border. Are you arguing that all border controls between the USA and Mexico are racist?

I'm certainly not saying that race has nothing to do with this - no doubt it was a big factor in the Wall's genesis and in its appeal. But so was class discrimination, fear of the poor, economic insecurity, and fear of violence (obviously exaggerated by the media . . . and Breaking Bad).

Digby wrote:Also it's the Mail. They love people owning houses and houses going up in value, ideally not Black people but they'll take what they can get.

They do have a point that he's now coming from a position of extreme privilege, but that's not going to change the story for the Mail. Which isn't to say Rashford isn't going to need some commentary on his own tax position, and probably his thoughts on his peers dodging tax from a position of great privilege

It's funny how the Daily Mail doesn't explore the assets and tax position of this vastly more wealthy man:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_ ... Rothermere

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:Also it's the Mail. They love people owning houses and houses going up in value, ideally not Black people but they'll take what they can get.

They do have a point that he's now coming from a position of extreme privilege, but that's not going to change the story for the Mail. Which isn't to say Rashford isn't going to need some commentary on his own tax position, and probably his thoughts on his peers dodging tax from a position of great privilege

It's funny how the Daily Mail doesn't explore the assets and tax position of this vastly more wealthy man:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_ ... Rothermere

Not just the Mail. Look how quickly the Panama Papers stopped being a big story and never got followed up on again. Yet again don't ask don't tell looks dodgy practice

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: I want to draw the distinction because I want to stick the truth. I want to be even-handed, even to people I don't agree with. If we don't do this we can't expect them to be fair to us.

Was the wall built for the express purpose of keeping brown people out? I don't remember Trump saying that. As far as I'm aware it was to keep Mexicans out, and was done on the back of disgraceful generalisations of them as rapists, drug-dealers, criminals etc. That's nationalism, which is a bad thing, but it's not racism.

So although Trump is definitely a racist, and I've no doubt part of his reasoning for the wall was racist, the wall will have some supporters who are not racist (eg people who are afraid of their jobs being taken by illegal immigrants). Calling the wall racist is equivalent to calling such people racist, and this, not surprisingly will get their backs up and make conversation impossible. This is a bad thing - we need to connect and find common ground.

I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

I want to stick to the truth. The wall discriminates on the basis of nationality (ie non-US), not on race.

If you say it is racist because its purpose is to keep out non-americans (predominantly from the countries you mention, predominantly hispanic people), then so are all controls on that border. Are you arguing that all border controls between the USA and Mexico are racist?

I'm certainly not saying that race has nothing to do with this - no doubt it was a big factor in the Wall's genesis and in its appeal. But so was class discrimination, fear of the poor, economic insecurity, and fear of violence (obviously exaggerated by the media . . . and Breaking Bad).

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the distinction that you clearly are. Just because it's nationalistic doesn't mean it can't also be racist - it's designed to stop non-Americans, because "those people are criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." It's like when people said, "The immigration ban wasn't a muslim ban because it didn't include all Muslim countries and might catch some non-Muslims too." Things don't exist outside of context or intent - it's clear and obvious what the intent of it is.

Oddly, I'd say that the border controls between the USA and Mexico make the wall *more* racist, because the border is not the point at which most illegal immigration into the US comes from, nor is the point on the border where the wall is where most of the immigration on the border happens (citation: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/68366269 ... ta-tell-us). So chucking a ridiculous amount of budget at something largely futile suggests that it's a symbol rather than an immigration tool.

I don't know; it feels like splitting hairs to me. One can be worried about immigration and not be racist, certainly. A wall in and of itself, might not be racist. However, I personally don't see how Trump's wall is not racist. YMMV

Puja

It was meant to be a massive veined spunking testament to a legacy of a masculine stand against the imagined threat to suburban women, but it the end it was a bit flacid and he just couldn't get it up.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: I'm still confused as to why this fine line is necessary. I will absolutely agree with your general point that calling all Trump voters racist is a (politically) bad thing and leads only to entrenchment of positions.

However, the wall wasn't about Mexico, it was about all the people south of the border, all of whom are Hispanic. I suppose you could say it was nationalistic against all of Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc if you really wanted, but I really don't see the value in pretending that race has nothing to do with it. I don't know you're saving anyone's feelings in a useful way by refusing to call a spade a spade.

Puja

I want to stick to the truth. The wall discriminates on the basis of nationality (ie non-US), not on race.

If you say it is racist because its purpose is to keep out non-americans (predominantly from the countries you mention, predominantly hispanic people), then so are all controls on that border. Are you arguing that all border controls between the USA and Mexico are racist?

I'm certainly not saying that race has nothing to do with this - no doubt it was a big factor in the Wall's genesis and in its appeal. But so was class discrimination, fear of the poor, economic insecurity, and fear of violence (obviously exaggerated by the media . . . and Breaking Bad).

I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing the distinction that you clearly are. Just because it's nationalistic doesn't mean it can't also be racist - it's designed to stop non-Americans, because "those people are criminals, drug dealers, and rapists." It's like when people said, "The immigration ban wasn't a muslim ban because it didn't include all Muslim countries and might catch some non-Muslims too." Things don't exist outside of context or intent - it's clear and obvious what the intent of it is.

Oddly, I'd say that the border controls between the USA and Mexico make the wall *more* racist, because the border is not the point at which most illegal immigration into the US comes from, nor is the point on the border where the wall is where most of the immigration on the border happens (citation: https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/68366269 ... ta-tell-us). So chucking a ridiculous amount of budget at something largely futile suggests that it's a symbol rather than an immigration tool.

I don't know; it feels like splitting hairs to me. One can be worried about immigration and not be racist, certainly. A wall in and of itself, might not be racist. However, I personally don't see how Trump's wall is not racist. YMMV

Puja

I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:I don't really want to get deeply into Trump's travel ban but I would say that it was clearly aimed at Muslim majority countries (if you pick 7 seven random counties on Earth, your odds of them all being Muslim are astronomically low). Whereas the wall is a strengthening of an existing border.

I really don't understand your point about the border controls making the wall *more* rascist. The fact that it's impractical, inefficient etc doesn't change how racist it is.

Can I try to repeat or rephrase my point? If border controls were taken away, those locations would simply be roads between Mexico and the USA. If this was the situation then illegal immigrants could easily move from Mexico to the US. These would predominantly be Hispanic. Therefore the effect of existing border controls is to prevent illegal immigration by people who are mostly Hispanic. Does that mean the existing border controls are racist?

Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote: Okay, I see where your point is, but I'm still not sure I agree with it. There are also border controls on the border with Canada. They are to stop Canadians illegally coming in, just the same as the Mexican ones are to stop Mexicans coming in. Those are nationalistic border controls.

The "new wall" (such as it is) was being raised because "they're not sending their best. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. They're animals." It cannot be devoid of the context that it was proposed in. A wall is not necessarily racist. The existing wall is not necessarily racist. This 'new' one is, because it's very raison d'etre, stated openly and plainly, was to keep 'those people' away.

Puja

This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: This getting philosophical .

So an object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

And a similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?

...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:
...that is a weird fucking extrapolation to take from this. I feel like you're trying to take a leap to, "Are you saying if we don't know the creator's intent, then we can't say anything is racist," which is absolutely not what I'm saying.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?

Some items are inherently racist: Gollywogs, for example. "No blacks" signs. Segregated water fountains.
Some items are not inherently racist: A rope tied in a slipknot. A banana. A wall
The first list will remain racist no matter the intent.
The second list may not be racist in some situations, but will be in others: left in black neighbourhoods, thrown at sports stars, from a politician who says that Mexicans are rapists and animals and thus this wall is necessary to keep them from pouring over the border.

In fact, the rope tied in a slipknot is an excellent example of this. A noose was found in black Nascar driver, Bubba Watson's pit garage after he spoke publically about BLM. The rope is not inherently a racist object - the intent to intimidate a black man was what made it racist. An investigation found out that that noose had been there for over a year, long since before Watson started using the garage and was a handle to swing a garage door shut. The fact that the intent of it was not to threaten Wallace changed the noose from a racist object to a bit of rope that was handy to shut a door.

Puja

That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

Digby wrote:For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:For all the noise around Corbyn it's not the more important story of the day, that surely is the awarding of contracts around Covid in such appalling fashion by the Tory Party.

A good number of ministers, some in the cabinet, and MPs fall foul of being inept, corrupt, or both. Resignations should already have been submitted, but as we saw with Agent Cummings they treat their roles with contempt. There is simply no acceptable explanation of far too much of the behaviour, it's not good enough to say we were under pressure to do something and/or it's a pandemic and look at what happened somewhere else.

Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

There's a lot here which is highly questionable. Its certainly worth of further investigation. I'm absolutely prepared to take into account the mad panic at the start of this pandemic and that people make mistakes. But there is a whiff of cronyism here which is hard to ignore.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Agreed. The existence of this high-priority channel is a disgrace. Indeed this kind of corruption should land them in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rt-reveals

If the high priority channel had delivered speed and value (accepting some reduced value) for money I'd accept it in a pandemic, but they're not even close to being bloody awful

There's a lot here which is highly questionable. Its certainly worth of further investigation. I'm absolutely prepared to take into account the mad panic at the start of this pandemic and that people make mistakes. But there is a whiff of cronyism here which is hard to ignore.

I get people make mistakes under pressure, but when they're this bad they should be accepting some consequences of making those mistakes. And not just the one sacrificial lamb, a multitude need to go. They're asking for a chance to work in some of the highest of high office and the standard to work there is high, I tried isn't close to good enough

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: You're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I totally agree that some things are inherently racist, like discriminatory laws, racial caricatures, symbols of racist organisations etc, no question about that.

What's more difficult to understand is where an object is not inherently racist, has no discriminatory effect. Can it be racist and if so, under what circumstances?


That slipknot is a very unusual and interesting example - like a case of mistaken identity. Only thought to be racist because an intent was inferred (incorrectly).

Do you mind going back to my questions relating to the wall? ie I think you were saying something to this effect - do you agree with this?

1) An object which has no racially discriminatory effects is racist if its creator had racist intentions in its creation?

2) A similar object, with the same effects, is not racist if its creator had no racist intents for it?

3) So without knowing the intentions of the objects' creators, we cannot know whether either object is racist? There is nothing intrinsic to either object which causes it to be racist?[

Okay, so you were asking literally what you wrote and I should try reading comprehension, huh? My mistake.

Yes, I think that's a reasonable summation - an object that is not inherently racist can become racist if originated or used for a racist reason or with racist intent.

Puja

No worries

Okay, so we have an object that has no racially discriminatory effects, but which was created by a someone with racist intent, and is therefore racist. Assuming its effects remain the same, how long does it remain racist?
1) is it permanently racist?
2) does it cease to be racist once it leaves the control of the creator?
3) does it cease to be racist if it falls into the control of a non-racist?
4) does it cease to be racist if it's relaunched or rebranded in a clearly non-racist way?
5) is there a time limit on it?
6) something else?

1) It depends
2) It depends
3) It depends
4) It depends
5) It depends
6) It depends

Depends very much on the object, the situation, the context, a dozen other things. Even if you were to give me a specific and very detailed example, I would be offering my opinion, rather than a comprehensive rulebook on the precise and accurate laws of "Is this bigoted" and, frankly, as a white, middle-class, cis, straight-passing, young, abled male, I'm probably not the best person to ask. My version of "Check your privilege" is basically, "Check, check, check, yup, got 'em all!"

Puja