Zero tolerance

lazydaisy

TC- Im gathering you are houdinianing your way out of accusations of racism by saying that race is not the same as culture, which indeed it is not. But the common parlance of the term racism is used to include prejudices against both race and culture and nationality. And I think you know that . You did not just assert a stereotype, you asserted, reinforced and exploited a deragatory stereotype to rationalise the unjust experiences of the OP.

WhiteWashMan

amp wrote:

You mean your seriously trying to equate the banning of the words Dutch Gold on a forum with the anti-rascism stance on Humanities?

Nice try there, but I'm not falling for it.

no, not at all, neither did i say that.
i simply drew a comparison between two generalisations that have been made recently, and the difference in the reactions to them, based on their merits.

i thought it was interesting. thats all.

other than that, i have nothing else to say on the matter.

continue....

The Corinthian

amp wrote:

Assigning generalisations without proof of any section of any society no matter what words you use to describe that section of society is a bannable offence. How clear can I make this?

I’m not arguing with you on what is a bannable offence or not, I’m arguing with you on your accusation of racism in this thread, on this forum. How clear can I make that?

You stated that entire Gypsy culture is endemically parasitic. If we replace the word Gypsy with Irish or Black would that be a racist statement?

No it would not. I can say that Irish culture is certainly prone to an unhealthy level of binge drinking and alcoholism, but would that be racist? No, it would be a comment on the culture and how it would affect anyone who grows up in that culture - regardless of their race.

Were I to say that the culture or sub-culture of certain areas of Dublin, Limerick and Cork were endemically parasitic, would that be racist? Of course not, it would be a comment on a culture or sub-culture where crime and social welfare dependency or fraud are considered acceptable, even laudable.

Now I may be exaggerating, I may be stereotyping and I may be simply wrong, but I would not be racist.

In my opinion it is. And, in this case, it's my opinion, not yours, that counts.

I’ve not challenged or even criticised anything you’ve done on the Humanities board.

I’ve challenged something you said here, on the Feedback board and here, your and, AFAIK, my opinion are equal.

Stop asking for an apology because I don't believe you deserve one.

TBH, I’m not sure if you actually think that or you simply don’t want to be seen to lose face at this stage.

I’m looking for you to back up your accusation of racism here. If you cannot do that then you are as guilty of making groundless accusations as you have accused me, and on that basis I would deserve an apology from you.

lazydaisy wrote:

TC- Im gathering you are houdinianing your way out of accusations of racism by saying that race is not the same as culture, which indeed it is not. But the common parlance of the term racism is used to include prejudices against both race and culture and nationality. And I think you know that .

If people don’t understand the difference between two concepts such as culture and race, you can hardly blame me for their ignorance or capacity to jump to erroneous conclusions. Especially as I have repeatedly, both here and in the thread in question, stated that what I was suggesting was not related to race.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

Now I may be exaggerating, I may be stereotyping and I may be simply wrong, but I would not be racist.

This is correct. It's some sort of bigotry, but it's not racism. That doesn't really improve things all that much.

amp

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m not arguing with you on what is a bannable offence or not, I’m arguing with you on your accusation of racism in this thread, on this forum. How clear can I make that?

My comment was this "I admit I also may be letting TC away with his racist comments."

I was obviously referring to your racist comments in the Humanities forum. In the context of my post this was clear. You have repeated those statements in this thread, on this forum so you'll forgive me if I am now confused about what you want me to apologise for.

amp

WhiteWashMan wrote:

no, not at all, neither did i say that.
i simply drew a comparison between two generalisations that have been made recently, and the difference in the reactions to them, based on their merits.

i thought it was interesting. thats all.

You're right actually there is a connection. In B/w/s Majd was generalising about Dutch Gold and now TC is generalising about gypsies. Both failed to back up their case. I didn't make that connection before. Thanks

other than that, i have nothing else to say on the matter.

continue....

Cheers!

The Corinthian

amp wrote:

I was obviously referring to your racist comments in the Humanities forum. In the context of my post this was clear. You have repeated those statements in this thread, on this forum so you'll forgive me if I am now confused about what you want me to apologise for.

I have repeatedly and politely explained that my comments, whatever else they may be, were not racist. I've even gone so far as to accept that people could jump to the conclusion that they were racist, which is why I have repeatedly - in both threads - qualified those comments to underline that there was no question of race being a factor.

So on this thread you've accused me of racism, regardless of where it stemmed from - and TBH, had you accused me of racism there, I would have brought it here anyway. You've repeatedly failed to put forward a case for, let alone prove, my comments being racist. Now you can continue just blankly ignoring pretty inescapable logic here on a matter of principle, but if what I said is not actually racist and you still managed to call me one, then you owe me an apology.

amp

The Corinthian wrote:

I have repeatedly and politely explained that my comments, whatever else they may be, were not racist. I've even gone so far as to accept that people could jump to the conclusion that they were racist, which is why I have repeatedly - in both threads - qualified those comments to underline that there was no question of race being a factor.

So on this thread you've accused me of racism, regardless of where it stemmed from - and TBH, had you accused me of racism there, I would have brought it here anyway. You've repeatedly failed to put forward a case for, let alone prove, my comments being racist.

My definition of racism is generalising about a section of people without proof. Using that definition I parse your parasitic statements as racist. Therefore I have nothing to apologise for. I am merely stating what I think are facts. Facts that were relevent within the context of my posts.

Therefore we seem to be at a stalemate. You insist that because you think that generalising about a culture without proof is not racist and therefore that your statement wasn't racist. I disagree.

The Corinthian

amp wrote:

My definition of racism is generalising about a section of people without proof.

That is not actually what racism is. FYI:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism

You’ll find that using race as criteria is a pretty fundamental part of racism. It may even be where it got the name, but I’ll admit that’s just a hunch.

Using that definition I parse your parasitic statements as racist. Therefore I have nothing to apologise for. I am merely stating what I think are facts. Facts that were relevent within the context of my posts.

Unfortunately the rest of humanity understands racism to mean something else, hence my objection. If you want to accuse me of “generalising about a section of people without proof”, I might disagree with you, but I’m not going to be offended.

At least then we won’t all be confused by your rather particular definitions of certain terms.

lazydaisy

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race

A definition of race, from the very dictionary you cite TC.

Is it a choice of words that you have a problem with? Is it that you would prefer your remarks to be called bigoted?

amp

The Corinthian wrote:

That is not actually what racism is. FYI:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racism

You’ll find that using race as criteria is a pretty fundamental part of racism. It may even be where it got the name, but I’ll admit that’s just a hunch.

Unfortunately the rest of humanity understands racism to mean something else, hence my objection. If you want to accuse me of “generalising about a section of people without proof”, I might disagree with you, but I’m not going to be offended.

Ok, cool. It has never been my intention to offend you.

I don't answer to the rest of humanity, just the Admins. My definition may not agree with yours but within Humanities my definition (and the definitions of my co-mods) counts. If the Admins tell me otherwise then my definition will change.

At least then we won’t all be confused by your rather particular definitions of certain terms.

Confusion? Humanities Charter:

Racism
"Don't make grand generalisations about something without backing it up with solid irrefutable facts."

That's my definition. You must have read at some stage. And I've repeated it many times in this thread. There's no confusion.

stevenmu

Would it be racist to claim that Irish culture involves lots of heavy drinking ? Sure lot's of Irish people don't drink at all, and many more drink very little or reasonable amounts, but I think it'd still be a fair claim to make, even if it matches some dictionary definitions of racism.

WhiteWashMan

stevenmu wrote:

Would it be racist to claim that Irish culture involves lots of heavy drinking ? Sure lot's of Irish people don't drink at all, and many more drink very little or reasonable amounts, but I think it'd still be a fair claim to make, even if it matches some dictionary definitions of racism.

no, its called stereotyping.

hell i dont drink that much, but anyone i speak to seems to think i can drink 15 gallons of guinness in a 3 hour session.

but then again, its something we all do. just read any anti american thread on AH and half the people will say something like 'all americans are stupid', or any anti english thread.

anyway, its pretty pointless bickering about the definition of racism on this forum. it is many different things to many different people.

for me, anything can be racist. it all depends on the tone and context of the comment in question.

anyway.

continue......

The Sweeper

amp wrote:

In B/w/s Majd was generalising about Dutch Gold and now TC is generalising about gypsies.

Yes. This is true. I think Dutch Gold is generally chemcial muck. It's probably also the drink of choice of gypsies. And right thinking upstanding people. Chrstxbye.

The Corinthian

lazydaisy wrote:

A definition of race, from the very dictionary you cite TC.

Is it a choice of words that you have a problem with? Is it that you would prefer your remarks to be called bigoted?

Does citing that definition have a point? You’ll have to be clearer as to your logic here.

amp wrote:

Ok, cool. It has never been my intention to offend you.

Then retract the accusation of racism.

I don't answer to the rest of humanity, just the Admins. My definition may not agree with yours but within Humanities my definition (and the definitions of my co-mods) counts. If the Admins tell me otherwise then my definition will change.

You don’t answer to humanity, but you should try to speak the same language as it. How about someone labels you a paedophile on the basis that their definition of paedophilia is someone who is over 25 and is attracted to people under 25?

Perhaps you should change the charter to explain that your particular dialect of English differs from everyone else’s?

Racism
"Don't make grand generalisations about something without backing it up with solid irrefutable facts."

Sure - don’t make grand racist generalisations - and I didn’t. The same rule applies also to "Racism/Sexism/****ism" (you didn’t seem to quote that bit) and you’ll find I didn’t make any sexist comments either.

I may have said something ****ist though. But it wasn’t racist.

My objection has nothing to do with how you moderate Humanities (although it might raise some questions), but that you made an accusation (not even on the Humanities board) that was both offensive and libellous. So outside of redefining the English language to suit your accusation you’ve not pointed out how I was racist. So I’m still waiting for that apology.

rsynnott

At this point you are arguing over semantics. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to clarify the Humanities charter (although, really, it should be obvious that it is not the place for sweeping generalisation; save that for After Hours) and say no more about it?

Pighead

rsynnott wrote:

At this point you are arguing over semantics. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to clarify the Humanities charter (although, really, it should be obvious that it is not the place for sweeping generalisation; save that for After Hours) and say no more about it?

Oi back off Kofi, this is getting quite interesting. Semantics my arse.

amp

rsynnott wrote:

At this point you are arguing over semantics. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to clarify the Humanities charter (although, really, it should be obvious that it is not the place for sweeping generalisation; save that for After Hours) and say no more about it?

The charter will not be changed. It's fine as it is. TC, I am done arguing with you about this.

Hobart

The Corinthian wrote:

You don’t answer to humanity, but you should try to speak the same language as it.
Perhaps you should change the charter to explain that your particular dialect of English differs from everyone else’s?

LMAO. Classic.

GuanYin

Its clear that its not Racism and TC isn't a racist.

He might be a bigot though

Hobart

psi wrote:

Its clear that its not Racism and TC isn't a racist.

He might be a bigot though

Agreed.

P.S. Belated welcome back syke

The Corinthian

amp wrote:

TC, I am done arguing with you about this.

Really? I’m not done waiting for you to apologise.

You dirty little kiddie-fiddler

GuanYin

Hobart wrote:

Agreed.

P.S. Belated welcome back syke

Thanks.

I love your sig by the way.

Although I'm afraid, as usual, I may have to disagree with you on it.

amp

The Corinthian wrote:

Really? I’m not done waiting for you to apologise.

You dirty little kiddie-fiddler

lol

lazydaisy

TC- I gave you this to be helpful. While your link offers a definition of racism, it doesnt tell us what race is. Ive copied and pasted it beneath if you want to compare. Clear?

race1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

---

[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ADVERTISEMENT




Related ads:

Discrimination Racism
Minority Hire
Minority Hiring
Employment Discrimination
Job Discrimination



2 entries found for racism.
rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

---

racist adj. & n.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

As you can see the definition is vague and doesnt tell you what race is:

racism

n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racialism, racial discrimination]

WhiteWashMan

lazydaisy wrote:

TC- I gave you this to be helpful. While your link offers a definition of racism, it doesnt tell us what race is. Ive copied and pasted it beneath if you want to compare. Clear?

race1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

---

[French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.]
Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populationsCaucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoidare now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean “white” or “European” rather than “belonging to the Caucasian race,” a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other pointssuch as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in anothermany cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ADVERTISEMENT




Related ads:

Discrimination Racism
Minority Hire
Minority Hiring
Employment Discrimination
Job Discrimination



2 entries found for racism.
rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

---

racist adj. & n.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

As you can see the definition is vague and doesnt tell you what race is:

racism

n 1: the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races 2: discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racialism, racial discrimination]

i dont want to appear rude here, but posting up something doesnt really prove anything, except that you know where to find the definition of a word.

how that helps your arguement that TC is racist, im not sure.

now where is that dictionary definition that says im handsome witty and wonderful?
i know i placed it here somewhere....

regi

*clutches brain*