jake-the-peg

[anotheoldgit]

The answer below is the answer I gave to your request posted in an earler post 'Racial Discrimination' Which you either failed to read or chose to ignore.

/// Talking of which I don't see any contrary definitions of racism yet from anyone - are we in agreement on what a racist is then? ///

and Kromo's comment ///And answer came there none.///..

jake-the-peg

You ask "what is racist"

Well I class a racist as a person that would do physical harm to a person just because of their race.

A person that discriminates in anyway to prevent a person of a particular race from attaining their just rights enjoyed by others.

In fact anyone who discriminates on a one to one basis.

I do not class a person racist who is prepared to criticise persons from another race, if the criticism is warranted.

I also do not class a person as racist if he or she happens to dislike a particular person or their lifestyle, no matter what race they belong to.

[Gromit]

My guess is that somebody who posts several posts a day, 52 weeks a year, for several years is probably a racist. Or has a Obsessive–compulsive disorder.

[jake-the-peg]

Well lets look at that shall we?

Your first definition is surely coverred by your second as someones just rights have to include not having harm done to them.

But you seem to be suggesting that racism can only be on an individual basis

Yet permit criticism of people from another race ("if warrented" - weasel words - who decides? you?)

This is at the heart of what racism is - it's descriminating against individuals because of criticism that you've decided to make against a group.

I'm sure if you were denied entry to the US because they decided that Brits were ungodly or troublesome - you'd be protesting to high heaven

Or are you happy to be labelled by the actions of your countrymen?

[anotheoldgit]

Not quite sure I understand most of your post, but regarding this point:

/// I'm sure if you were denied entry to the US because they decided that Brits were ungodly or troublesome - you'd be protesting to high heaven ///

But even this doesn't truly address the point.

Your analogy refers to Brits being denied entry to the US because they were ungodly or troublesome, I would be protesting to high heaven.

Of course I would, seeing that I am neither ungodly or troublesome, if I were then they have ever right to bar my entrance, without being called racist.

Get to the point without the need to introduce matters that have nothing to do with the subject in question.

If you are somehow referring to my many posts, showing my concerns against mass immigration, I offer you this:

We were told by our politicians that it was not racist to be concerned about immigration.

[Kromovaracun]

For anyone who missed the original thread - voila:

http://www.theanswerb...Question920658-2.html

AOG - your definition of racism is inconsistent.

In this thread:

http://www.theanswerb...s/Question833720.html

You pulled up Gromit for being 'ageist'. Your reasoning for it was that he "specifically singled out older drivers" in saying that they should be made to take eye tests. Your logic here appears to have been that Gromit assumed that all older drivers' eyesight will deteriorate, while not taking account of other drivers with poor eyesight. His opinion is therefore slanted by a preconception against older drivers - 'tarring them all with the same brush', as the saying goes.

You, however, do exactly the same thing with regards to ethnic groups. Based purely on your postings on here, you seem incapable of distinguishing between individuals in ethnic groups - between violent minorities and passive majorities, for instance, among blacks or immigrant communities or among Muslims*

If the logic you used above applies to 'ageism', then it should also apply to racism - and you meet it quite easily.

*I realise this isn't actually race issue thanks to youngmafbog's correction, but AOG's thinking on it seems very similar and I can't be bothered to differentiate it.

[anotheoldgit]

/// My guess is that somebody who posts several posts a day, 52 weeks a year, for several years is probably a racist. ///

Do you really check out what you post?

So someone who posts several posts a day, 52 weeks a year, for several years is probably a racist?????????

Wow, that covers most journalists then?

Incidentally you do not do too bad for saying you hold down a job at the same time.

Yes we all know you would like to keep up with me, why you even altered your Avatar to mimic mine (pointed finger and that).

Impersonation is the best form of flattery they say.

[Gromit]

My guess is that somebody who posts several posts a day [ on race/blacks/muslims on the answerbank ] , 52 weeks a year, for several years is probably a racist.

You are right about the Avatar, I have been meaning to change it for a while, thanks for the prompt.

[anotheoldgit]

I would not have put it so obvious to get your point over, when the first one doesn't work, just slip in extra words, it puts it in an entirely different perspective.

[ on race/blacks/muslims on the answerbank ]

Incidentally just putting in 'race' would have covered it, have I got to keep correcting you?

But then this would have been also incorrect because I post on most subjects, the reason the race ones stick out is because of your own 'Anti British' views.

Or doesn't the word racist apply in your case?

Glad yo see you have altered your Avatar on my suggestion, but it is still a stupid looking dog.

[anotheoldgit]

/// you seem incapable of distinguishing between individuals in ethnic groups - between violent minorities and passive majorities, for instance, among blacks or immigrant communities or among Muslims* ///

Since most of the postings I make are against violent minorities, and it is because these are the ones that make the news, therefore there is no need for me to mention passive minorities.

If it was in the news that groups of them lined the streets to welcome home our troops, then this would get in the news, and I would more that likely comment favourably towards these groups.

The same could be said about Blacks, the ones that commit savage gang rapes, stabbings, shootings and are a national problem, they consequently get in the news.

If there was a wholesale commitment that the community were to take to take it upon themselves to work together and rid the violent ones from their communities.

Then this once again this favourable action would reach the news outlets, and be worthy of favourable comments.

But I am afraid until such times the majority will also be classed unfavourably because of the minority.

[Kromovaracun]

" the majority will also be classed unfavourably because of the minority. "

Only because of people like you.

If you're aware that most Muslims aren't looking to bring down the UK, or most blacks aren't predisposed to rape or stabbings, then you don't do a very good job of showing it. My point is that you consistently seem to tar whole groups with the same brush - if you're aware that's wrong, that's just worse.

[anotheoldgit]

I don't suppose all pit-bull dogs are all savage, but until I am in some way convinced that they are not, then I will continue to treat them all the same, although in my mind knowing it is impossible for them all to be so.

Much safer that way, than to have one's fingers bitten off and then say "i didn't think he was savage"

[McMouse]

I may have the solution.

[jno]

so you're drawing a comparison between black people and pit-bulls? If in doubt, count the legs.

[Kromovaracun]

I don't think that works. You're not at any greater risk of being stabbed if you treat black people like individuals.

Plus, you've just admitted that you treat ethnic groups as the same based on a minority's actions. Which is racist.

[anotheoldgit]

Kromo

For example can you honestly say that all Muslims are not terrorists, of course you can.

But the tricky part is separating the ones that are from the ones that are not.

Is this being racist or just being sensible?

[anotheoldgit]

/// I don't think that works. You're not at any greater risk of being stabbed if you treat black people like individuals.///

Incidentally it is you and others that have now singled this argument around blacks solely.

But seeing you mentioned them specifically, I will assume you are black yourself.

Being a white person I will state that most white people would not feel safe walking through certain black districts alone at night.

Is this being racist?

If it is then the same could be said for a black person walking through certain inner cities that are predominately white.

Would this also be classed as racist?

[Kromovaracun]

I'm not black.... I was just using it as an example.

I'll respond to your other points when I have a minute.

[Zeuhl]

///can you honestly say that all Muslims are not terrorists, of course you can. ///

Actually, no you can't.

You can't say that all muslims are not terrorists because some of them are.

You can say that not all muslims are terrorists.
And not all terrorists are muslim.

Tricky blighter; logic.
:-)
.

[Kromovaracun]

"But the tricky part is separating the ones that are from the ones that are not."

Honestly, if I meet a muslim, I don't think 'I wonder if he might be a terrorist'. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, it would be like wondering if the first middle-aged white person you met was a child molester or a serial killer.

[Kromovaracun]

"
Being a white person I will state that most white people would not feel safe walking through certain black districts alone at night.

Is that racist?"

Well, it depends why they don't feel safe. If they don't feel safe because it's a rough area (which most of them would), then no. I don't feel safe walking through parts of my area either because they're rough. If they don't feel safe because they're black areas, then yes that's racist.