"Know Racism" campaign

Biffa Bacon

What do people think about this "Know Racism" campaign? Personally I think it's the most idiotic example of state propaganda since the "Cool Choices" website. There was an ad in the Irish Times yesterday with a picture of an aul wan and a Chinese doctor. The slogan said, "What do you see, a foreigner or a doctor?" Puh-lease. Who comes up with this patronising rubbish and why haven't they been fired yet?

I won't even talk about the leaflet I got in the door a few months ago, informing me I had to go out and make immigrants feel welcome.

mike65

BB, I'd say plenty of ppl here need that sort of gentle reminder.

Getting the tone and content right is nearly impossible either you'll be condemed for being, as you put it, patronising or being to
diffident and low-key.

Mike.

yossarin

having looked at the site, I'd say it's pretty decent.

its a decent effort at a good cause, at at the very worst it is harmless. Thanks Biffa - i wouldn't have been able to lend my support to it if you hadn't drawn it to our attention.

rock on !

yoss

BuffyBot

Originally posted by mike65
BB, I'd say plenty of ppl here need that sort of gentle reminder.

Getting the tone and content right is nearly impossible either you'll be condemed for being, as you put it, patronising or being to
diffident and low-key.

Mike.

Have to agree here. Some action is better than no action. At least is something, which may provoke some people to think. If it does that much, thats useful

Biffa Bacon

From the Know Racism website:

RACISM is a specific form of discrimination and exclusion faced by minority ethnic groups.

Only minorities eh? So apartheid wasn’t racist then?

RACISM is based on the false belief that "some" races are inherently superior to others because of different skin colour, nationality, ethnic or cultural background.

The word “false” here exemplifies the Orwellian abuse of language employed by these people. No one’s opinion on this can be considered “false”, rather the use of this word is intended to stifle all debate on the issue in a classically fascist manner.

RACISM deprives people of their basic human rights, dignity and respect

No it doesn’t. Certain racially-motivated acts may constitute a denial of human rights, but racial beliefs in and of themselves do not. Of course, this is just a flagrant attempt to indoctrinate the proles with leftist ideology by declaring certain thoughts to be “badthink”.

Ireland is increasingly a multicultural society. This is a strength

Not in my opinion it’s not. Why is taxpayers’ money being used to fund a propaganda campaign exclusively in favour of one side of a contentious national political issue? And why is the issue of multiculturalism being brought up at all if not so as to implicitly equate opposition to multiculturalism with racism?

What is Racist Behaviour?
Racist behaviour can take the form of jokes or hurtful remarks, outright racist insult, persistent verbal harassment, threatening behaviour, injury to person or damage to property, racist phone calls, letters or e-mails. It can also be manifested by deliberately snubbing, avoiding or omitting to include a person or persons because of their race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin.

Wow thanks for that. And I was wondering why my friend Umbangwe stopped talking to me after I kept doing those monkey impressions whenever there were other white people around. I was being racist!
:rolleyes:

Can anyone really tell me that this sort of nonsense is a justifiable use of taxpayers’ money?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by mike65
BB, I'd say plenty of ppl here need that sort of gentle reminder.

Getting the tone and content right is nearly impossible either you'll be condemed for being, as you put it, patronising or being to
diffident and low-key.

Mike.

"Gentle" reminder? It's as subtle as a sledgehammer to the nuts.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by BuffyBot
At least is something, which may provoke some people to think.

But who could possibly be that stupid?

sceptre

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But who could possibly be that stupid?

I'd say over half of the population, but then I've little faith in the majority of people to have an opinion of their own based on some kind of fact.

yossarin

so, by your account Biffa, the Know Racism site is "classically fascist" and also exists in order to "indoctrinate the proles with leftist ideology".

in any event, the front section of the site (the entry page) is heavy handed in its views, but the rest of the site is fair in it asessments. They are calling for understanding, or at the very least an open mind. Not everybody thinks like you Biffa.

I would consider the site a valid use of government money, not the least for its community building efforts

rock less slightly on

yoss

Shinji

Only minorities eh? So apartheid wasn’t racist then?

Given that this is a campaign focused on Ireland, that's an entirely fair statement in context.

The word “false” here exemplifies the Orwellian abuse of language employed by these people. No one’s opinion on this can be considered “false”, rather the use of this word is intended to stifle all debate on the issue in a classically fascist manner.

Nobody's opinion is false, as such (well, except yours, but those who live under bridges are a bit like that eh Biffa?) - however BELIEFS can indeed be false. You know - like, the earth is flat, if you sail too far out to sea you fall off the edge of the world, black people are less intelligent than white people and they all steal. Things like that.

Of course, this is just a flagrant attempt to indoctrinate the proles with leftist ideology by declaring certain thoughts to be “badthink”.

"Leftist ideology"? Like, "hey, how about treating other people decently for a change"? Jesus christ, I'm not much of a leftie but I'll sure as hell sign up to that one.

Why is taxpayers’ money being used to fund a propaganda campaign exclusively in favour of one side of a contentious national political issue? And why is the issue of multiculturalism being brought up at all if not so as to implicitly equate opposition to multiculturalism with racism?

So now the mistreatment of people on the basis of the colour of their skin is a "contentious national political issue"? Bollocks. A "total national fúcking disgrace", maybe. And as to the question of multiculturalism, well, were it not for the increasingly multicultural nature of Ireland this wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Whether you agree with multiculturalism or not (and I have reservations myself), racism is still one hundred percent unacceptable. That's not a debatable issue. The ignorant scumbag telling black people or oriental people on the bus to "fúck off back where you came from" isn't a protest against multiculturalism, it's a demonstration of utterly disgusting stupidity and bigotry. Relatively intelligent (and I use the term loosely) people like yourself coming out with this kind of rubbish only lends support to actions like this - and it's on exactly those grounds, the "intelligent" justification of racism, that parties like the BNP exist.

I hope you're very proud.

Turnip

I doubt that Biffa has actually ever read 1984. The word "badthink" certainly doesn't appear in it.

BuffyBot

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
But who could possibly be that stupid?

As sceptre said, a surprisingly amount of people in the country...

dathi1

More money wasted on promoting PC bull**** which would be better spent on health care, etc where there is real discrimination.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
More money wasted on promoting PC bull**** which would be better spent on health care, etc where there is real discrimination.

Sure...let me guess...its not affecting you so the money should be spent elsewhere???

If the government will not protect minorities, who will?

As for Biffa's tirade.....I'm trying to decide whether I believe it is trolling or just plain ignorance. I certainly havent heard anyone argue so racistly since I banned our good friend Mr. White.

I mean, after analysing the language for petty syntactical flaws, Biffa would have us blindly belief that "racial beliefs" equate to racism :

RACISM is a specific form of discrimination and exclusion...

RACISM deprives people of their basic human rights, dignity and respect

No it doesn’t. Certain racially-motivated acts may constitute a denial of human rights, but racial beliefs in and of themselves do not.

If you read the language used, Biffa, you will notice that it states that Racism involves discrimination and exclusion - neither of which you disagree with. These are not beliefs, they are actions. Therefore, while you can argue all you like that beliefs do not deny human rights...the acting on such beliefs is what is being discussed here, and these actions most certainly do deny human rights, dignity and respect.

Let me guess though...just like your "99% of knackers" comment in another thread recently, I've taken you up wrong here, and there's actually nothing inflammatory (or brane-dead) in what you're saying....or rather, in what you're implying....cause you couldnt bother explaining it in a detailed fashion first time round.

jc

Victor

I think it should actually have a higher profile than it has at the moment.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by yossarin
They are calling for understanding, or at the very least an open mind.

They are not calling for an open mind, they are presenting their subjective opinions as facts and are insisting that certain forms of behaviour are obligatory for all citizens.

I would consider the site a valid use of government money, not the least for its community building efforts

I am mystified as to how this campaign is supposed to “build communities”. Are there really people out there who were previously racist and whose minds have now been changed by it?

Originally posted by Shinji
Given that this is a campaign focused on Ireland, that's an entirely fair statement in context.

OK, so racism means one thing in Ireland and something else in South Africa? Or is it that non-white races are physically incapable of doing anything racist? Or is it that you hold non-whites to lower moral standards than whites?

Nobody's opinion is false, as such (well, except yours, but those who live under bridges are a bit like that eh Biffa?) - however BELIEFS can indeed be false. You know - like, the earth is flat, if you sail too far out to sea you fall off the edge of the world, black people are less intelligent than white people and they all steal. Things like that.

Please explain to me how you could objectively either prove or disprove the belief that "some" races are inherently superior to others because of different skin colour, nationality, ethnic or cultural background. To declare that such a belief is “false” is an abuse of language and points at an attempt to indoctrinate the reader with a specific ideology.

"Leftist ideology"? Like, "hey, how about treating other people decently for a change"? Jesus christ, I'm not much of a leftie but I'll sure as hell sign up to that one.

The ideology they are trying to promote is that multiculturalism is good and those who oppose it are racist.

So now the mistreatment of people on the basis of the colour of their skin is a "contentious national political issue"?

No, the belief that “multiculturalism is a strength” is the contentious national political issue.

The ignorant scumbag telling black people or oriental people on the bus to "fúck off back where you came from" isn't a protest against multiculturalism, it's a demonstration of utterly disgusting stupidity and bigotry.

I agree. Of course, when I call such people “knackers”, people like bonkey bite the head off me and call me a troll. “Scumbag” is obviously much better.

Originally posted by Turnip
I doubt that Biffa has actually ever read 1984. The word "badthink" certainly doesn't appear in it.

Seems you’re right Turnip. Could’ve sworn it did. Oh well.

Originally posted by BuffyBot
As sceptre said, a surprisingly amount of people in the country...

What I was asking was if there was any so stupid that they would only start questioning their racism as a result of this patronising campaign.

Originally posted by bonkey
If the government will not protect minorities, who will?

The government is not protecting minorities. This campaign does nothing to dissuade racially-motivated behaviour. At present, there is very little danger of anyone who verbally abuses minorities on the street facing legal sanction as a result of their actions.

I certainly havent heard anyone argue so racistly since I banned our good friend Mr. White.

Thanks bonkey. But I don’t suppose you could point out any racist arguments I’ve used on this thread, apart from “RACISM is a specific form of discrimination and exclusion faced by minority ethnic groups” because I was just quoting the website there, it wasn’t actually my own opinion.

I mean, after analysing the language for petty syntactical flaws, Biffa would have us blindly belief that "racial beliefs" equate to racism

I’m sorry, I would have thought that that was the common understanding of the word “racism”, that it relates to a belief-system.
From the Concise OED:
racism a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

If you read the language used, Biffa, you will notice that it states that Racism involves discrimination and exclusion - neither of which you disagree with. These are not beliefs, they are actions. Therefore, while you can argue all you like that beliefs do not deny human rights...the acting on such beliefs is what is being discussed here, and these actions most certainly do deny human rights, dignity and respect.

Fine, I’ll concede the point, once we recognise I was using a different definition of “racism” to that used on the website.

As for my not disagreeing with discrimination and exclusion, I don’t object to them per se as they are a corollary of the right to free association. Neither do I object per se to laws outlawing discrimination and exclusion in the public arena. What I do object to is publically-funded campaigns telling me, in an exceptionally condescending manner, how to think and behave, while simultaneously promoting a political agenda (i.e. multiculturalism) that I disagree with.

Let me guess though...just like your "99% of knackers" comment in another thread recently…

The one you’ve just quoted incorrectly and which you didn’t substantively disagree with?

dathi1

here we go again....."The Know Racism" campaign to me seems like a over run, over hyped, and over budget waste of money which will do no favours for ethnic minorities. The real issues of discrimination in Irish society are to be seen around us in housing, health care etc. the priority of these campaigns (to me) seems to create an air of hype around supposed racist elements in our society. Irish people are not racist and we don't need some new quango set up under an umbrella of quasi do good / middle class / leftist D4/ Irish times people telling the rest of us that we're racist. I think the objective of these people which include unions etc..is to make people think that they are racist i.e.: thought criminals. ..for instance somebody (like myself) who would object to uncontrolled immigration. Unfortunately this newspeak thought criminal agenda is having some success...I was at a public meeting in driminagh in south Dublin last summer where residence were rightly concerned about local immigrants setting up a Muslim library in their area. They were immediately shouted down as racist by a rough element in the crowd well planted by local SF and labour members. Now...there's nothing wrong with setting up a Muslim library but some people were trying to voice their concerns rightly or wrongly that it might lead to a mosque with minarets and prayer calling 5 times a day in their area...problem was they didn't even get a chance to speak as they were heckled and booed by the thought police. Needless to say the gallery was very quiet after wards with people looking at each other to see who would dare question the hacks at the back. The local immigrants changed their minds later anyway.
Why not start a new campaign about discrimination against members of society like the homeless?, the sick?, the poor? we could call it Know Realism Campaign....but we couldnt have that could we.. D.

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
Now...there's nothing wrong with setting up a Muslim library but some people were trying to voice their concerns rightly or wrongly that it might lead to a mosque with minarets and prayer calling 5 times a day in their area...

(a) What does a library have to do with a mosque? - not a lot.
(b) Does the mosque in Clonskeagh have "prayer calling 5 times a day"? (Is it five times a day?) - no.
(c) Would these be the very people complaining if restrictions were put on bells tolling in a church - probably.
(d) Are these the people who cause a public nuisance coming home drunk from the pub after midnight - quite possibly.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Please explain to me how you could objectively either prove or disprove the belief that "some" races are inherently superior to others because of different skin colour, nationality, ethnic or cultural background.

Well, its actually simple. You start with an assertion : define clearly what is meant by superiority, and show that a particular race has this, through physical, mental, sociological testing etc.

Failure to do so implies that one race is not superior to another.

I think you will find that any balanced study will categorically fail to provide proof for any definition of superiority. Ergo, you cannot prove superiority.

You can also easily reverse this logic to disprove a base assumption of superiority.

I agree. Of course, when I call such people “knackers”, people like bonkey bite the head off me and call me a troll. “Scumbag” is obviously much better.

Knacker, as you are well aware from the multitude of times it has been brought up, is a colloquialism for an itinerant in much of Ireland. It may not be in your neighbourhood, but it has been pointed out on this forum previously. It is, at best, an ambiguous statement when taken in context with the expected audience. More probably, the interpretation taken would not be the one you intend. You are aware of this and yet persist in using the term openly. The only sense I can make of this is that you do so on the grounds that you know what you are referring to, so thats alright.

Scumbag, on the other hand, does not have any common alternate colloquial meanings that I am aware of. If you'd care to prove me wrong, I will - naturally - concede the point.

Thanks bonkey. But I don’t suppose you could point out any racist arguments I’ve used on this thread,

Certainly - your argument that racism does not undermine human rights, dignity, etc. Or, perhaps, your implication that the belief in the superiority of one race over another is a valid and acceptable one.

As with your 99% post, it takes at least one follow-up post for you to start explaining why those remarks that many took as inflammatory were, in fact, perfectly reasonable.....

Fine, I’ll concede the point, once we recognise I was using a different definition of “racism” to that used on the website.

Sure, I recognise that you read and quoted a definition, and then proceeded to use a completely different one.

As for my not disagreeing with discrimination and exclusion, I don’t object to them per se as they are a corollary of the right to free association.

You are directly implying here that it is fine to exclude based on any reason you like, and that this is somehow associated with "free association". So free association would make it alright for Dublin Bus to introduce "whites-only" buses? Any maybe we could have "whites-only" pubs n clubs. Yeah - freedom of association and all that. No racism here. Honest.

No, the belief that “multiculturalism is a strength” is the contentious national political issue.

And, you know, if that sentiment was expressed in any nation which had more than one dominant culture, it would be termed racism. In fact, your entire anti-multiculturalism stance would be classed as racism in a nation such as the US.

Funnily enough - werent you the one trying to say to Shinji that racism doesnt mean different things in different places? Or did I misunderstand your comment when you asked :

"OK, so racism means one thing in Ireland and something else in South Africa?"

So - whch is it? Your mono-cultural stance wouldnt be taken as racist in a multi-cultural nation, or racism means different things in different places?

The one you’ve just quoted incorrectly and which you didn’t substantively disagree with?

Sorry Biffa - your lines just arent memorable enough for me to care enough to memorise them verbatim.

jc

dathi1

(a) What does a library have to do with a mosque? - not a lot.

yer right..Nothing

(b) Does the mosque in Clonskeagh have "prayer calling 5 times a day"? (Is it five times a day?) - no.

no not from minarets or on loudhailers as agreed by council etc.

c) Would these be the very people complaining if restrictions were put on bells tolling in a church - probably.

no..but the host culture is predominantly Christian..wouldn't ask the Turks, Saudis, Yemenites or Iranians to do the same.

(d) Are these the people who cause a public nuisance coming home drunk from the pub after midnight - quite possibly.

I don't know...do u know them? is there something wrong with coming home drunk after being in the pub? or are we going to ban that aswell?..[joke hell we could go one step further and implement sharia law and have them flogged or stoned for being Irish and drunk /joke]

listen..none of the above is relevant to my argument..I'm expressing my concern freedom of thought and expression by Irish citizens on the immigrant issue without being thought criminals.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
I was at a public meeting in driminagh in south Dublin last summer where residence were rightly concerned about local immigrants setting up a Muslim library in their area.

Rightly concerned? What was so right about their paranoid concern?

Now...there's nothing wrong with setting up a Muslim library

Then why were these peoone rightly concerned?

but some people were trying to voice their concerns rightly or wrongly that it might lead to a mosque with minarets and prayer calling 5 times a day in their area...problem was they didn't even get a chance to speak as they were heckled and booed by the thought police.

And if these Muslim people tried opposing a new church being built in the area, I wonder how much respectful silence they'd be given to voice their concerns (rightly or wrongly).

Why not start a new campaign about discrimination against members of society like the homeless?, the sick?, the poor? we could call it Know Realism Campaign....but we couldnt have that could we.. D.

We could, but given the protests about a campaign which probably affects a larger number of people, and (I would imagine) leads to more violence....I doubt very much that anyone would be placated by the extra cost.

jc

p.s. Why is it posters are intimating that there is something incorrect in telling you what is not acceptable in society? Thought police? badthink? Leftist Ideology? Sheesh. Whats next? Ban teaching - its corrupting our minds by telling us what to think and how to think it? Give the soundbites a rest. Please.

dathi1

Rightly concerned? What was so right about their paranoid concern?

So now if you're concerened rightly or wrongly ..you're paronoid! so shut up and dont speak.

Then why were these peoone rightly concerned?

Because they have a right to be.

And if these Muslim people tried opposing a new church being built in the area, I wonder how much respectful silence they'd be given to voice their concerns (rightly or wrongly).

when in rome......

Why is it posters are intimating that there is something incorrect in telling you what is not acceptable in society?

Posters telling us that we're racist I have a problem with...its racist.
ps..any chance of not hitting the return button as much...the gaps scrool down the whole page.

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
(d) Are these the people who cause a public nuisance coming home drunk from the pub after midnight

Originally posted by dathi1
is there something wrong with coming home drunk after being in the pub?

Why did you misquote me - I said "public nuisance ... after midnight"? And, yes, there are health, safety and other reasons not to be drunk going home.

Originally posted by dathi1
or are we going to ban that aswell?..[joke hell we could go one step further and implement sharia law and have them flogged or stoned for being Irish and drunk /joke]

How is this a "joke"? all I am suggesting is that excessive drinking has contributed to the strong rise in crime here in the last few years.

dathi1

y did you misquote me - I said "public nuisance ... after midnight

ok..if thats the case I'll go back and tell them that anybody who objects to Muslim librarys in their area are liable to be drunk and a public nuisance after midnight.

How is this a "joke"? all I am suggesting is that excessive drinking has contributed to the strong rise in crime here in the last few years.

so it is..but do you really believe in sharia law?

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
but do you really believe in sharia law?

What relevance does this have to the topic? I don't know the ins and outs of sharia law, but I suspect, like other systems of laws it has it's good and bad points. However, I personally object to the extreme punishments used in it's name. My beliefs would be closer to what Jesus said "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, give unto God what is God's"

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, its actually simple. You start with an assertion : define clearly what is meant by superiority, and show that a particular race has this, through physical, mental, sociological testing etc.

Failure to do so implies that one race is not superior to another.

I think you will find that any balanced study will categorically fail to provide proof for any definition of superiority. Ergo, you cannot prove superiority.

You can also easily reverse this logic to disprove a base assumption of superiority.

So if I were to define racial superiority as relating to say, average sprinting speed over 100m, I would expect to find no differences between races? Of course not. Using your proposal, we would expect to find that some races are superior to others, given whatever definition we use. The notion of racial superiority surely relates to indefinable and unmeasurable qualities, such as morality, intellectual ability, fitness to rule etc.

Knacker, as you are well aware from the multitude of times it has been brought up, is a colloquialism for an itinerant in much of Ireland. It may not be in your neighbourhood, but it has been pointed out on this forum previously. It is, at best, an ambiguous statement when taken in context with the expected audience. More probably, the interpretation taken would not be the one you intend. You are aware of this and yet persist in using the term openly. The only sense I can make of this is that you do so on the grounds that you know what you are referring to, so thats alright.

So despite the fact that you are fully aware of the context I use it in, and the context that most people in Ireland use it in, you still accuse me of trolling whenever I use it?

Certainly - your argument that racism does not undermine human rights, dignity, etc.

As you are also fully aware, that argument was based on the definition of racism as a belief-system, rather than as a mode of behaviour. You have not disputed that such a belief-system cannot in and of itself undermine human rights or human dignity.

Or, perhaps, your implication that the belief in the superiority of one race over another is a valid and acceptable one.

My implication was that the belief in the superiority of one race over another cannot be said to be objectively false. Your inference above is entirely baseless.

As with your 99% post, it takes at least one follow-up post for you to start explaining why those remarks that many took as inflammatory were, in fact, perfectly reasonable.....

You were the only one to take my 99% post as inflammatory, despite knowing full well the context in which I used the term you took offence to, and you did not substantively disagree with the opinions expressed therein, despite having described me as a troll and ignorant.

Sure, I recognise that you read and quoted a definition, and then proceeded to use a completely different one.

I defined the word as it is used and understood in everyday language. Pardon me.

You are directly implying here that it is fine to exclude based on any reason you like, and that this is somehow associated with "free association".

It is the very definition of free association. I am not making any moral judgments on discrimination here, rather I am asserting that this civil liberty of necessity guarantees the individual the right to discriminate and exclude.

So free association would make it alright for Dublin Bus to introduce "whites-only" buses?

As Dublin Bus is a semi-state body I would object to any move to introduce “whites-only” buses. If a privately-owned bus company were to segregate its buses, I would not use their services. Recognising the right to free association does not imply moral approval of choices made regarding who to associate with and who to exclude.

Any maybe we could have "whites-only" pubs n clubs. Yeah - freedom of association and all that. No racism here. Honest.

Such a policy would almost certainly be racially-motivated. What’s your point?

And, you know, if that sentiment was expressed in any nation which had more than one dominant culture, it would be termed racism. In fact, your entire anti-multiculturalism stance would be classed as racism in a nation such as the US.

By idiots.

Funnily enough - werent you the one trying to say to Shinji that racism doesnt mean different things in different places? Or did I misunderstand your comment when you asked :

"OK, so racism means one thing in Ireland and something else in South Africa?"

So - whch is it? Your mono-cultural stance wouldnt be taken as racist in a multi-cultural nation, or racism means different things in different places?

I don’t see the contradiction. I see racism as meaning the same thing no matter what the society. My mono-cultural stance might very well be taken as racist by the feeble-minded, but this does not mean there is any inconsistency in my use of the term.

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
So if I were to define racial superiority as relating to say, average sprinting speed over 100m, I would expect to find no differences between races? Of course not. Using your proposal, we would expect to find that some races are superior to others, given whatever definition we use. The notion of racial superiority surely relates to indefinable and unmeasurable qualities, such as morality, intellectual ability, fitness to rule etc.

The fatal flaw with your argument here Biffa, is that superiority is a subjective term, incredibly so. And if your assertion is that people use racist language and slang because a certain race can run the 100m, swim, or play cricket better than another, you're sadly mistaken. Discrimination against blacks and hispanics in the US isn't because Kobe can race around the court or because J-Lo can belt out a few tunes(ok, humor me on the J-Lo part). You see what I'm getting at? Genetic, or even in many cases *social* disposition towards success in a particular field isn't what pi$ses people off. If you can demonstrate to me convincingly that these black 100m athletes suffer unduely high levels of discriminations due to their profession I will of course withdraw the argument.

As you are also fully aware, that argument was based on the definition of racism as a belief-system, rather than as a mode of behaviour. You have not disputed that such a belief-system cannot in and of itself undermine human rights or human dignity.

I see, so if I qualify an unjust set of principles in the semantic cocoon of a 'belief system' it no longer undermines human dignity? Brilliant! Well, those damn apartheid regimes should have just put forward the idea as a belief system like the Nazis did! Maybe then they'd have been justified. Belief systems have and will continue to marginalize those who deserve better. To think otherwise is callous, downright amoral.

My implication was that the belief in the superiority of one race over another cannot be said to be objectively false.

That's not the point though. Racism is based on a discriminatory point of view/actions. The type of superiority you have alluded to is NOT the primary motivator of racist actions/belief. The notion that certain races are naturally inferior because of their inability to say, command the English language adequately is far more common. It stems from ignorance and social bigotry.

You were the only one to take my 99% post as inflammatory, despite knowing full well the context in which I used the term you took offence to, and you did not substantively disagree with the opinions expressed therein, despite having described me as a troll and ignorant.

Second-guessing one another isn't going to get us anywhere. Of course this should be obvious...just not to some. I don't think most of us grasp any plausible meaning you infer which isn't racist in some way shape or form. Also, I fail to see how he could substantively disagree with a position fundamentally lacking in substance. It would require an argument of policy on your part to convince anyone of moral conscience to countenance these ideas. Outrageous policy ideals should require an outrageously high standard of both proof and open-minded direction, neither of which were evident in your position.

I defined the word as it is used and understood in everyday language. Pardon me.

Such an every-day definition cannot be anything but hopelessly inadequate when dealing with a problem as complex and with such a wide base of cause as this one Biffa. It would be like me trying to explain embryonic evolution using play-dough- I could certainly make certain basic concepts clear, but beyond that I would struggle.

It is the very definition of free association. I am not making any moral judgments on discrimination here, rather I am asserting that this civil liberty of necessity guarantees the individual the right to discriminate and exclude.

It is particularly difficult to ascertain your meaning here Biffa. The vagaries of this statement lead me to conclude that it is the right of an employer to disqualify female staff from any employment position on the grounds that they might have children and disrupt the workforce. Discrimination on grounds the individual has little control over or that impedes equity of rights is just not on, I'm sorry. There is nothing you could possibly say to me that will convince me that disqualifying someone from any official application on grounds of their race, sex, religion or belief system isn't morally bankrupt.

This is just the problem with your mistaken notion that private companies should be allowed to discriminate against employees on whatever basis they see fit. Even GIVEN the current climate of European human rights law, it still occurs at an extremely unhealthy level. Women physicians are routinely screened out of surgical careers by medical boards on a variety of ridiculous grounds. Given that such a prejudice is practically self-evident in the private sector with current legislation, it seems foolish and irresponsible (to me at least) to restore such a dangerous choice to a private sector that has historically abused them beyond reason.

Such a policy would almost certainly be racially-motivated. What’s your point?

Part of his point I believe is that the local US administrations in the 1960s didn't see them as racist either. In other words, they sought segregation as a means to preserve social harmony and keep order. Which ironically enough is the same sort of argument you seem to be advocating here. Such policy harks back all the way to colonial times, where segregation in Rhodesia for example, led to the discontent burning in the breast of every native-born Zimbabwean. We are living with the consequences of such an idiotic state policy to this very day, history has shown us what not to do, and yet you still persist with this line of reasoning- why? Every social circumstance that has been laid out for us in history shows that discontent is born of exclusion, not inclusion, bigotry, not tolerant coexistence.

Governments have more than just a duty to reflect public opinion. Take the death penalty- many european states have 65% of their population supporting such a sentence. But governments in Europe choose to *lead* public opinion, and set a morally outstanding (in most cases) example. Else why even have government one might argue, just let the mob rule our affairs.

By idiots.

Remarks like that certainly don't help to convince me that your view is not based on intolerance. Practicality is your claim, yet your views exhibit both a chilling amoral pragmatism and an undercurrent of intolerance. Now that's just my opinion, and not an expert one either- but the responses on this thread indicate I'm not the only one getting those feelings.

I don’t see the contradiction. I see racism as meaning the same thing no matter what the society. My mono-cultural stance might very well be taken as racist by the feeble-minded, but this does not mean there is any inconsistency in my use of the term.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is the feeble-minded who would purport such a policy. Especially given its dismal and embarassing track-record. I tend to be of the view that monocultural ideals are racist by definition. That particular brand of intolerance has shown itself in historical terms to engender racist ideology. If only for that reason we should chuck the notion. Then there's the simple truth that cultures evolve. Homogenizing values only lasts for so long, Ireland is a mish-mash of genetic stock, cultures, heritages even within its borders. To assert there is a unique national identity formed by lines drawn on a map is sheer lunacy- THAT is facist, not a philosophy that encourages tolerance.

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

So you don't mind foreigners as long as they don't happen to be in Ireland. That's what it sounds like to me- if so, then that is a position I find abhorrent, to be avoided at all cost. Take Paul McGrath- his cultural roots certainly aren't entirely Irish- would he play for the Republic if you were the team's manager? Or would multicultural bias give you the right to exclude him. These are dangerous ideas you're playing with Biffa- and at the core you find at the very least an isolationist ostrich-headed policy, at the most, a fertile breeding ground for racism. Social tension and alienation as I have said, result from exclusion, not political correctness.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Such a policy would almost certainly be racially-motivated. What’s your point?¨

My point is that such a policy is a completely reasonable extension of what you are arguing. You are consistently failing to draw a line between your want for cultural isolationism and racism.

By idiots.

Ah yes...those idiots who decided that (as Occy pointed out) the cultural segregation evident up until the 60s was, in fact, just another form of racism and racial discrimination. People like Malcolm X, Marthin Luther King, their myriad of followers, and teh modern-day politicians who have learned the error of the ways of their predecessors and approach the issue from a somewhat more egalitarian and open-minded solution?

Those idiots? The same ones who have already figured out that cultural segregation does not work.

Well - I guess that explains why they are idiots...if they weren't, you'd be wrong.

To clarify: my objection to multiculturalism is not based on any dislike of foreigners, but because I believe it leads to a fracturing of society. This in turn results in social tension and alienation.

Sure. Its leads to fracturing of society due to exclusionist attitudes. Theyre not wanted here, because if they come here, we will treat them badly (because we dont want them), resulting in them never becoming part of our community, resulting in them having to turn inwards.

Its a chicken and egg situation. You are effectively saying that we dont want them here because we will exclude them if they come, and this will lead to problems.

Again - I must remind you - I live in a nation where foreigners are (by and large) welcomed. Every so often there are large influxes of single-culture groups - the Italians, the Turks, the Tamils, the ex-Yugslavians, etc. In each case there is initial conflict as these groups try deperately to hold on to their old ways, ignoring the sensibilities of those who have welcomed them. This is tolerated, and typically, after a single generation, the issue is no longer an issue, and the cultures have melded themselves into Swiss society.

Switzerland is no less Swiss than it was a century ago, despite having welcomed all these influxes. The secret is that they welcome these people. They want them to have jobs, to do well, and to fit in. Funnily enough, the newcomers soon realise that this too is what they want.

Compare with Ireland where its an attitude of "they come here, take our jobs, take our welfare, and force their culture on us." No wonder these people cling so tightly to their own identity - they see no offer of inclusion, no hand of welcome.

And then you complain that it is they who are to blame for cultural fragmentation?

I would also point out that the "cultural purity" that you seem so set on protecting is already a mish-mash of cultures, built over centuries. Funny that...if multiculturalism really was divisive, then surely this nation would have self-imploded a long time ago.

jc

jc

dathi1

Switzerland is no less Swiss than it was a century ago, despite having welcomed all these influxes. The secret is that they welcome these people.

by about 3000 votes last week.
The crux is...if we accept them..will they accept us? Oldham, Bradford, Marseils. etc..

dathi1

the Turks, the Tamils,

are very recent arrivals to Switz and you are yet to experience how culturally different they are and if they will accept the swiss model...Italians etc ..are what Switz is.

dathi1

Funny that...if multiculturalism really was divisive, then surely this nation would have self-imploded a long time ago.

there is no comparison between now and a long time ago. Ireland is now experiencing the largest immigrant influx (since our economy went on the up) in its history. 10,000 illegal immigrants (Colonialism by stealth) a year make the Vikings look like a tea party. ..and speaking of Multiculturalism, immigration, self implosion and Irish history...The Ulster Plantation? Multiculturalism ..my arse!!