Racist - The Bear and Badger

Lord_Griff

More genuflection is what is needed to solve this problem..

cockbeard

Escape wrote:

davyK wrote:

I got the same line about blowing people up when I lived in England

With your Mighty Buckets?

No chance Davy would use any bombs until at least lvl5 Boss

Escape

Colonel Salamanders

davyK

SpaceGazelle

My Dad just sent me a text saying Marcus Rashford was insufferable. Sigh.

dynamiteReady

DrewMerson wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself, what is different about racism in sport compared to racism elsewhere?

http://thebearandbadger.co.uk/discussion/comment/1980701#Comment_1980701

DrewMerson wrote:

And at the risk of repeating myself, what is the simple thing? I just want one sentence, with no euphemism or ambiguous hypotheticals, because you seem to be making a different point every time I ask.

http://thebearandbadger.co.uk/discussion/comment/1980816#Comment_1980816

You know, these 'define racism' arguments become much more painful when there is more at stake, but they are generally the same.

If you don't like the answers, fine. That's common too.

We've all been members of this board for a long time now, and despite having questions about certain sections of our group, I respect many of you a great deal. There are too many good people on here, for me to take this argument in anything but good faith.

So yes, I'm heated about it, but I'm not angry at you particularly. Or Liv. Or Cocko.

But I did answer you.

Not quite directly, and probably not to your satisfaction either, I'm sure.
But as you can see, I also have a few questions about some of your ideas.

That's how this subject works. All arguments are flawed, because the idea under discussion is flawed.

So I've answered your questions.
Here's a pair for you.

Can you define racism in your own words?
And do you think racism is easy to define, or difficult to define?

hunk

Muzzy did a brave attempt at trying to define the beast that is racism a few pages back. Sadly, his post went unnoticed in the heat of discussion.

Unlikely

I have no idea why anyone even attempts to engage with Dyna on this topic.

dynamiteReady

hunk wrote:

Muzzy did a great attempt at defining the many facets of racism a few pages back.

I respect what you've done here, but I did actually just want Andy's definition.

dynamiteReady

Unlikely wrote:

I have no idea why anyone even attempts to engage with Dyna on this topic.

ATTTCAK!!!

hunk

dynamiteReady wrote:

hunk wrote:

Muzzy did a great attempt at defining the many facets of racism a few pages back.

I respect what you've done here, but I did actually just want Andy's definition.

Aye, during a debate we need to sometimes check if we're discussing the same subjectmatter to keep the discussion on track. Not different aspects of it and shouting past one another in the wind. But, I understand your reasoning. Carry on.

poprock

This feels like it’s devolved from an open discussion into a one-on-one argument looking for a winner and loser. I can’t for the life of me understand why.

g.man

BECAUSE INTERNET

DrewMerson

poprock

g.man wrote:

BECAUSE INTERNET

did-joe-predict-show-success.gif?resize=480%2C270&ssl=1

Syph79

Just seen that Portsmouth FC is conducting an investigation into some of their u18’s squad, following a published screenshot of an alleged player’s chat group in which various racial slurs are used about the England players who missed penalties and their ethnicity.

If kids in football clubs, which are very diverse environments are acting that way, I despair for everyone else.

dynamiteReady

DrewMerson wrote:

it’s not entirely clear to me what you mean by ‘this’. One reading is that you limit racism to lynchings. Another reading is that you limit racism to acts with intent.

Ignoring the personal stuff, while I'd prefer an answer to my question about your interpretation of racism, this line above, is good. I think, when I discuss racism with others who also live with the negative consequences of racism, we do all generally agree that it comes down to identifying 'act(s) with intent'.

Absolutely:

When I talk about racism being simple, this is what I mean.

Even as a racist, you'd know this form of harassment is a crime.

How do you see it as being more complicated than that?

Perhaps this is my unconscious bias.

poprock

dynamiteReady wrote:

… it comes down to identifying 'act(s) with intent'.

So … you’re saying that if a racist doesn’t act on their racist beliefs, they’re not actually racist.

That doesn’t sound right to me.

dynamiteReady

davyK wrote:

But yeah, it’s a mess. Is there more integration between communities in NI these days? My understanding was that everything was quite segregated for a long time, is that starting to break down at all?

It's a mess alright. It's hard to explain too.

...

Wow. Appreciated.

The walls are sad to hear about. Palestine is said to be like that.
It's the only analogue I can think of.

I suppose since Tony Blair and Gerry Adam's peace accord, the media has had no use for the story, and the only reminder I had in years, was when the story of the Miami Showband Massacre was introduced by a survivor in the national debate over Brexit. One of the saddest stories.

It actually sounds like there's a long way to go.

I'm lucky not to have lived with that.

I know what the response will be to this post, given my remarks on the simplicity of racism.
But before that, I just wanted to appreciate Davy's (and Kneecap's) post(s).

davyK

The Sec. of State for NI is due to make a statement at lunchtime about processes for dealing with the past. On the agenda is immunity from prosecution. There is backbench pressure in Westminster for preventing getting old soldiers into court. But this would include IRA/UVF killings too.

Local BBC radio is lit with this.

I can't see how setting a precedent for this makes any sense. Having a statute of limitations more or less gives a green light for any future terror campaigns

dynamiteReady

poprock wrote:

… it comes down to identifying 'act(s) with intent'.

So … you’re saying that if a racist doesn’t act on their racist beliefs, they’re not actually racist. That doesn’t sound right to me.

Well, Hunk hinted at a post Muzzy made earlier, where he described racism as a continuum.
I get that (I think).

Much like the scale for neurological conditions like ASD, everybody, in some way exhibits traits of ASD. But it's not a problem for everybody. For some it is, and those people need support.

Similarly, if we do believe that everyone is in some way prejudiced (can 100% believe that), and that racism is a matter of degree, then Ace makes a good point. There's probably a commonly accepted cut off.

I don't think anyone has to be an expert on the grading of this continuum, to determine where that cutoff point should be.

Active attempts to unjustly assert an unqualified superiority over others, or active attempts to engineer a cultural state that favours one group over another, no matter how small or large those actions are?

That's generally where I think the problems start.

Does that sound wrong?

I mean, you now know I can never share my Scottish, Irish and Liverpudlian accent efforts with you, right?

davyK

So called "peace walls" are a tourist attraction now. Black taxis do "terror tours" of these and mural sites.

Peace-Wall-Belfast-Belfast-Murals-by-Connolly-Cove-16.jpg

Peace-Wall-Belfast-Belfast-Murals-by-Connolly-Cove-16.jpg

This one is more illustrative of the situation.

dynamiteReady

davyK wrote:

So called "peace walls" are a tourist attraction now. Black taxis do "terror tours" of these and mural sites.

Who the fuck does the 'terror tour'? Not anyone on the mainland, surely?

poprock

dynamiteReady wrote:

Active attempts to unjustly assert an unqualified superiority over others, or active attempts to engineer a cultural state that favours one group over another, no matter how small or large those actions are?

Does that sound wrong?

Yes, it sounds wrong.

Racism is about beliefs, as much as actions. Because actions are the result of beliefs. Those beliefs come about because of cultural, systemic and historic racism. So we need to tackle those things if we ever want to reduce their end result - the actions you’re focusing on.

dynamiteReady wrote:

I mean, you now know I can never share my Scottish, Irish and Liverpudlian accent efforts with you, right?

You’ve lost me there. No idea what you mean.

dynamiteReady

poprock wrote:

Active attempts to unjustly assert an unqualified superiority over others, or active attempts to engineer a cultural state that favours one group over another, no matter how small or large those actions are? Does that sound wrong?

Yes, it sounds wrong. Racism is about beliefs, not actions. Because actions are the result of beliefs. Those beliefs come about because of cultural, systemic and historic racism. So we need to tackle those things if we ever want to reduce their end result - the actions you’re focusing on.

That's the crux of it. We definitely both believe that racism is wrong, and I think we still agree on Muzzy's continuum idea.

But we have different ideas about how it should be addressed, and where the emphasis on tackling the problem should be.

I think you believe I'm oversimplifying the problem. I definitely have my reasons for seeing a binary. It's there everyday.

I see your desire to explore the grading of the continuum as a way of deferring a real discussion about some of the changes that can be made today. Like the stadium bans for online abuse, and changes to the educational and justice systems.

We have to agree to disagree on some of this stuff. But I appreciate the fact that you didn't turn it into some vindictive shit.

Funkstain

"I see your desire to explore the grading of the continuum as a way of deferring a real discussion about some of the changes that can be made today. Like the stadium bans for online abuse."

This has been the crux of your argument (as far as I'm capable of understanding of it) since the beginning of this shit show and about 12 people have pointed out repeatedly that this isn't a binary choice: that it is entirely possible to have a discussion about what you refer to as a continuum (and what others more sensibly refer to as the deeper underlying causes of racism), AT THE SAME TIME AS making and pushing for changes and action against obvious explicit harmful everyday racism TODAY, like the stadium bans for abuse and mass-signing of petitions to show public opinion etc.

The "vindictive shit" comes because of instead of acknowledging this obvious statement (it is possible to action and talk at the same time) you double down on the idea that: no, actually, talking undermines action totally; and imply that the talking is instead a SHIELD against action, thus making me, and those who are capable of holding that two things are possible together, a closet racist, which you know I'm not gonna react great to because it's predicated on the assumption that we can't fucking talk about something apparently

Funkstain

this is literally pages of stuff simply because you cannot seem to accept that it is possible to talk about something interesting and valuable and difficult and complex, without somehow simultaneously and unavoidably undermining anti racist action, which is mind blowing to me - especially when you take that to the extreme of me deliberately hiding behind those conversations to...undermine anti racist action. I mean double fuck me

hunk

I think everyone here agrees there's no place for overt racism in society. And truth be told, a lot is being done to tackle that form. Stadium bans, Trump's ban from social media (lol), fine's, laws etc; all are part of measures implemented.

It's the covert racism that's insidious, that feeds the overt form. It's systemic in our society, in our (right wing) politics and big business who (in)directly thrives on division. It's embedded in our very culture and thus it's imprinted in our psyche. We can fight the overt symptoms but that's not the real illness. The real illness is insidious inside our collective heads and untill we tackle that head on things won't change.

poprock

Okay, I pretty much agree with Funk (and Hunk) but I think I can respond without being quite as blunt. Maybe I’m just not as frustrated yet.

dynamiteReady wrote:

I think we still agree on Muzzy's continuum idea.

I don’t, at least not the way you described it, and I don’t remember Muzzy’s description … but that doesn’t matter.

dynamiteReady wrote:

I see your desire to explore the grading of the continuum …

I don’t want to explore a mythical ‘racism continuum’, but let’s ignore that.

dynamiteReady wrote:

… as a way of deferring a real discussion about some of the changes that can be made today.

You’re making assumptions on what I want. Racist actions need to be dealt with – minimised, overturned, punished, etc. as appropriate.

What I really want (what I really, really want) is for more and more people to be woke – in the original sense of the term – for more and more people to wake up to the real systemic and cultural racism embedded in our societies so that we can start to undo the centuries of learned bad beliefs. Because in the long run that is the only way to reduce racism and it’s horrors.

I think that’s pretty thorough on where I stand and why your posts moved me to actually say something. I think you’re blanking out the bigger picture and that doing so is to the detriment of progress. For me, trying to spread awareness of that bigger picture and why it matters is a (very) small way of taking positive action.

Funkstain

Maybe if Dyno had called you a racist you'd be more blunt I dunno

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories