George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[Stellaboz]

A place in Glasgow  where only two people can have a square go?

Teaches me to double check before posting. Nice idea though.

[Pcplum]

12 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

The bbc seem to be pushing forward any bame presenter or pundit they can find.

Kind of creating the same conditions as before isn’t it? Equality of outcome regardless of talent or ability.

Alex Scott and some others are great but Ian Wright ffs, what’s going on there?

This is some meltdown you’re having .I think you should keep away from the internet for a few days for you own sake.

Edited July 5, 2020 by Pcplum

[Pcplum]

11 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

Aggregate greenie but Limmy does not belong in there

Limmys absolutely chronic.

[Bairnardo]

To help explain things a wee bit,  racism doesn't always come in the form that you can clearly see with the naked eye. It's not necessarily a case of "I don't like black people therefor no black person will be employed here whilst I'm in charge"  if you've ever had a job I'm sure you'll know that getting in and getting on at a company isn't solely down to how good you are at the job, everyone knows stories of jobs for the boys / masons , people helping family members into good jobs or even just a case of someone's face fitting in a certain setting.  For example a manager in a small team has to decide when hiring someone that they will be sharing a small place and a lot of time with them and others who he/she already knows well. When all the applications are in and it's even Stevens between candidate A who they know and candidate B who they don't , they almost always favor familiarity over an unknown quantity,
The same thing applies when a black person is applying in an overwhelmingly majority white environment like Scotland.  There is a job opening to work in a team of 8. the man in charge of recruitment has 2 candidates to chose from , one black one white, In the white one he can identify and understand . relate to their upbringing, family, hobbies, culture, mannerism etc etc but in the black one he can't. when he has to picture who is going to be the best fit in his team he will usually edge towards the familiar rather than take a potential risk on an unknown quantity.  this does not make him a raging bigot but it does mean that the black man finds doors closed more often than not.
having a diversity policy means that arms get twisted into employing the people who should have been employed on merit all along. it also means that people get more chance to meet and interact with people of different races ( which in Scotland is not a given, you could go through your whole life and never talk to a non white ) and become familiar with them.  when there is familiarity discrimination and bias decrease rapidly.
look at sectarianism now compared to 50 years ago,  we've went from workplaces routinely having no kafflicks policys to only hardcore bigots practicing such attitudes

This is a good post. There is a human instinct element to all of this. A natural reaction in your brain to things you see that are different from yourself and it doesn't just apply to race.

The Bigot takes that instinctual reaction and assumes it to be correct/acts on it/demands it be respected as his right.

The non-bigot recognises that the reaction is rooted in bias and seeks to look past it to ensure no discrimination is taking place.

[Pcplum]

10 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

Is the premier league racist?

Why is there no British Asian players?

 

Ffs pal,you’re not doing to well here.

[Theroadlesstravelled]

31 minutes ago, Pcplum said:

Limmys absolutely chronic.

He’s hit or miss but the falconhoof stuff is generally pretty funny.

[Gordon EF]

I find the idea of quotas pretty intrinsically uncomfortable. They might be the least worst of the realistic options though. It's fairly clear that humans generally have a tendency to be consciously or unconsciously biased towards 'people like them' and across society that has resulted in fewer opportunities for non-white people.

In an ideal world, people wouldn't be biased, would always hire the best people for the job, blah, blah. That very clearly does not happen though. Whoever brought up the example of Derek Ferguson pretty much nailed that one. He's got the verbal skills of a 6 year old and all the insight of a farmyard animal.

 

[pandarilla]

This is a good post. There is a human instinct element to all of this. A natural reaction in your brain to things you see that are different from yourself and it doesn't just apply to race.

The Bigot takes that instinctual reaction and assumes it to be correct/acts on it/demands it be respected as his right.

The non-bigot recognises that the reaction is rooted in bias and seeks to look past it to ensure no discrimination is taking place.

I don't think it's quite as black and white as this (if you pardon the pun).

Yes there are still bigots who are racist, and those people are being rightly called out (this has been happening more regularly for many years).

But i think it's too far to call the person who doesn't understand systemic racism a bigot. They're not being a bigot, they're just acting in what they perceive to be an open and honest way. They're trying to do the right thing - but they've yet to understand the difficult concept of unconscious bias.

If someone has it explained to them and still argues then that's a worrying a sign. But are they a bigot or are they just thick? And does that difference even matter? I don't know.

The key for society is for us to discuss systemic racism and unconscious bias much more. We need to educate ourselves better. I've said this before but calling people out as racist generally doesn't win folk round.

[Bairnardo]

I don't think it's quite as black and white as this (if you pardon the pun).

Yes there are still bigots who are racist, and those people are being rightly called out (this has been happening more regularly for many years).

But i think it's too far to call the person who doesn't understand systemic racism a bigot. They're not being a bigot, they're just acting in what they perceive to be an open and honest way. They're trying to do the right thing - but they've yet to understand the difficult concept of unconscious bias.

If someone has it explained to them and still argues then that's a worrying a sign. But are they a bigot or are they just thick? And does that difference even matter? I don't know.

The key for society is for us to discuss systemic racism and unconscious bias much more. We need to educate ourselves better. I've said this before but calling people out as racist generally doesn't win folk round.

You are right it's absolutely not as clear cut. Just a bit of a summary really. One good thing that might come out of the recent focus on racism is more awareness of the types of racism that exist and the more unconscious ways it manifests itself. I expect vast swathes of society to refuse to be educated on it though. The "all lives matter" brigade mostly.

FWIW I had this discussion with Gaz (I think) a good while ago on here about people using the term "chinky" specifically in reference to takeaway food which was a debate between whether that in itself makes someone a racist person, or whether it represents an ignorant use of a racist term from someone who just thinks it's a word and has no issue whatsoever with anyone based on race. The point about being educated on its use and still using it was discussed then too.

It's very difficult to go anecdotal on these subjects too. I felt I had personal experience of why it doesnt neccesarily follow that someone who says it is a racist, but that led to "some of yer best pals are black/asian/gay" type chat and the whole thing got lost really.

I do think you are right that we maybe need to realign who gets branded a racist. The above example, is that worthy of getting plastered all over social media and held up as racist scum/cancelled, whatever else..... Not for me. The football fan caught on camera making monkey gestures otoh, definitely. Get them nailed to the fullest extent of the law. They deserve the brand.

As I had said before, and more so now. Being branded a racist will be a tough mark to remove, and will affect peoples life and prospects so we probably need to be more careful about it as we hopefully move through a constructive and educational phase on the subject.

[Gordon EF]

Part of the issue with "calling people out" is how effective is it. The example of someone who refuses to stop using words like "chinky" or "paki" after having it explained multiple times that's it's not really acceptable is a bit of an easy one. But there are far more ambiguous examples. If someone doesn't see themselves as a racist then it seems pretty unlikely that being called a racist is going to change their views.

[Stellaboz]

What's so hard just saying you're ordering a Chinese?

[philpy]

2 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

What's so hard just saying you're ordering a Chinese?

Exactly. Some people say "I'm going to the pakis" when heading to the shop. What's wrong with just saying "I'm going to the shop"?? 

[Bairnardo]

This is a good post, but the problem with the term ‘chinky,’ is that you’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that it is a racial slur, and if you still feel that it’s more important to be able to use it to describe your Saturday night takeaway because you always have, you absolutely should be called out as a racist, because that’s inexcusable. 
 
The overlap between those who refuse to use the phrase Chinese takeaway and those who hold what you might call ‘traditional’ racist views will also be massive. 

Aye, agreed. It was a very specific example I had used at the time of a person who I could hand on heart say was absolutely not racist but I can accept the overlap you describe is highly likely to exist. I just cant get past (and this might end up being part of my education on the subject) the view there are levels to this and to say that someone is a racist is strong and becoming stronger in terms of "mud sticks".

It's such an evolving, emotive and loaded subject (rightly so tbh) that sometimes it's hard to speak about without falling into some traps. Sometimes I think people enter into the subject utterly determined to call someone a racist. Equally some people enter into it staunchly determined that their views wont change and go with the "you cant say anything these days without offending folk" patter. Neither is helpful, but my opinion it would help if more folk acknowledged theres a difference between someone who needs to learn to use different words and lay off certain stereotypes, and someone who actively and knowingly discriminates against people because they see them as inferior based on race.

I have to admit that while I like engaging about these topics on here, in real life the last few weeks have been fucking depressing with the amount of "WHITE LIVES MATTER TAE" chat I have heard from people insisting they are "not a racist, but....."

Theres so much work to do in this country and if it isnt constructive then it will end up making it worse. The amount of racist comments I have heard tagged on the end of a sentence that started off sounding like it was supportive of BLM protests is incredible. As is the number of people who have somehow effortlessly segued into homophobia in the same discussion.

[Gordon EF]

Just now, ali_91 said:

How do you change people’s views though? The vast majority of people (myself included) are unwilling to waver far from what they perceive to be the right path. On that basis, and on the basis that even educating people about why their opinions are wrong doesn’t really work, ‘calling them out’ is probably the best method, because being called a racist is the thing that offends racists the most, and if you can’t change them, might as well annoy them. 

I definitely don't have an easy answer to that and I don't think there is one. And to be clear I'm not talking about "proper racists". Changing their views would probably take an enormous amount of time and effort if it's even possible so ridiculing them and criticising them is fair enough.

Folk who say things like "all lives matter" are probably a better example. I appreciate you might think all these people are racists but I think a lot of them don't think of themselves that way. I think there's been a fair amount of decent discussions being had about why BLM is a legitimate movement and why ALM isn't really an appropriate response. I'm sure plenty of people have re-evaluated their view. I don't think screaming bigot at them would do any good.

[Gordon EF]

58 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

This is actually a good example, and I would hope that most sensible people would try and explain the connotations behind all lives matter and why it’s not an appropriate response to the BLM movement before branding someone a racist. 
 

I fully admit I can be too quick to judge on issues like this, however using the term ALM is a screaming warning sign that someone supports rangers and protects statues, and if it is explained to someone why saying all lives matter is downplaying the BLM movement and they still can’t see why it’s not an appropriate saying, then in my opinion they are clearly entering in to bigot territory, even if, as Bairnardo said, that isn’t fully fledged ‘I’m superior because I’m white,’ racism. 

I'd agree. Basically, everyone who's a massive gammon-faced, Rangers supporting, statue-defending bigot is going to say ALM but not everyone who says it is going to be a massive gammon-faced, Rangers supporting, statue-defending bigot.

[Hampden Diehard]

There are a lot of people in the UK who are simply p***ks.  Race, religion and all the sexual / gender issues only gives them a particular focus for their p***kery. If it wasn't for that wee mix of things to get annoyed about, they'd still be p***ks, Ignorant and a skitter smear on humanity.

[Savage Henry]

3 hours ago, ali_91 said:

This is a good post, but the problem with the term ‘chinky,’ is that you’d have to have lived under a rock to not know that it is a racial slur, and if you still feel that it’s more important to be able to use it to describe your Saturday night takeaway because you always have, you absolutely should be called out as a racist, because that’s inexcusable. 
 

The overlap between those who refuse to use the phrase Chinese takeaway and those who hold what you might call ‘traditional’ racist views will also be massive. 

Anyone who uses the word chinky is absolutely aware it’s a racial slur.  It can’t be justified in any way.  Likewise an unawareness of symptomatic racism makes one part of the problem, and a person’s refusal to accept it on the grounds that “I’m not racist and will oppose any racism I come across” is even more so.   There are certain phrases you just can’t use, whether you agree with that or not.  I’d be amazed, but not surprised, if certain football songs continue to be sung under the guise of traditional slang.  

If your natural reaction to “black lives matter” is to say “all lives matter”, that’s a much deeper and malevolent mind set.  By reacting in that way, you are deliberately dismissing the particular BLM issues, which is the matter at hand, even if it is under a pretence of empathy.  There’s no justification for saying all lives matter, because not only does it subjugate BLM, but it demands attention on White Lives Matter Too, which perpetuates existing power structures.  

In short, we all have to moderate our language and our actions, and our beliefs.  Sometimes it’s better to just shut up and listen, rather than (pretending to?) empathise.

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Savage Henry

[NotThePars]

2 hours ago, Gordon EF said:

Part of the issue with "calling people out" is how effective is it. The example of someone who refuses to stop using words like "chinky" or "paki" after having it explained multiple times that's it's not really acceptable is a bit of an easy one. But there are far more ambiguous examples. If someone doesn't see themselves as a racist then it seems pretty unlikely that being called a racist is going to change their views.

Think a major problem, particularly online, is that nobody really knows who's engaging in good faith or just trying to point score. I'm guilty of it myself and think it's fine to dunk on people who know what they're doing but plenty of people are just ignorant and maybe need it patiently explained. The other issue with calling out is what's the next step? Loads of people don't have a next step and I wonder how they expect to win people over to their side if there's no positive reason to other than scolding.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I'm guessing D.A.F.C. is generally disliked and passed over for promotion on what seems like a monthly basis because he's a racist melt. Oh well, mystery solved.

[D.A.F.C]

I'm guessing D.A.F.C. is generally disliked and passed over for promotion on what seems like a monthly basis because he's a racist melt. Oh well, mystery solved.

And there we have it.
Mystery solved.
Thanks for your contribution.