Manx Radio

[Max Power]

12 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Nope, only girls

And yet black boys murders are well publicised many years after they occurred? It's a bit like what Peter Pan mentioned last night, the defining thing is their colour in those cases. They would not have been newsworthy had they been white, and they would be long forgotten. I think in the Madeline McCann case it wouldn't make any difference what colour she was.  

[Mr Newbie]

21 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Nope, only girls

James Bulger. 

[HeliX]

5 minutes ago, Max Power said:

And yet black boys murders are well publicised many years after they occurred? It's a bit like what Peter Pan mentioned last night, the defining thing is their colour in those cases. They would not have been newsworthy had they been white, and they would be long forgotten. I think in the Madeline McCann case it wouldn't make any difference what colour she was.  

I think it's quite how abhorrent the Damilola Taylor case was is the defining feature and why it's so widely remembered. That said, I mostly shared it out of bemusement that Piers Morgan appeared to have said something left wing

[HeliX]

5 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

James Bulger. 

Yeah I had "the one from the train station" in my head but I didn't want to google the name because the request was off the top of my head!

[Mr Newbie]

12 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

When you read that ( I listened too) it just illustrates what a non issue this is.  Oh and Jordan is a right wanker with a chip on both shoulders.

By most accounts he seems to be a fair enough bloke. But it doesn’t detract from the fact that this was a clear set up from the start. From the scripted questions of more than one caller to the scripted posts of white middle class outrage that went up on Twitter and Facebook very shortly afterwards and the bombardment of the sponsor to get them to pull. It’s a campaign to promote awareness. As I’ve said often enough Jeremy Paxman he ain’t so it’s a pretty inferior scalp which has been claimed here so I’m not sure why they are all patting themselves on the back like they’ve changed the world and socked a blow to racism. They all think that they’re grown ups because they got a 60 year old bloke who runs a poor phone in show on a tiny parochial radio station in trouble. That’s really socking it to society and to racists everywhere! 

[hissingsid]

The latest photos taken today are not pretty these are no peaceful protests and it is not helping anyone.   These protests are stirring up racial feelings and are getting out of hand disgusting really.

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, hissingsid said:

The latest photos taken today are not pretty these are no peaceful protests and it is not helping anyone.   These protests are stirring up racial feelings and are getting out of hand disgusting really.

Who are they stirring up racial feelings in?

[woolley]

3 hours ago, Declan said:

I think you tend to see every challenge to every term as because it’s seen by the objector as racist or offensive. People using the term coloured aren’t (in most cases) using it as a pejorative and when it’s challenged it’s from the point of view “we don’t say that anymore Dad”. But it suits the right-wing narrative of “perpetually offended snowflakes eroding freedoms” so you use hyperbole. 

”Coloured” is problematic because of its historical use in South Africa’s racial distinction and the US Jim Crow laws.

In British English it was often used euphemistically to describe an individual as if describing them as black or Asian is offensive. We use euphemisms to avoid saying something bad - but there’s nothing bad about being black or Asian so why be coy about describing people that way? And, of course, at one time, some people used it as a euphemism for the n-word and other racist terms. So people aren’t really sure which word you’re using the euphemism to replace. For clarity, in general really, euphemisms are best avoided. 
 

People of Colour isn’t universally accepted and I don’t really like it but it is used differently.  It’s used as a collective noun for a group of people with a wide range of ethnicities and doesn’t have the historical context. Maybe it’s a step towards reclaiming and neutralising “coloured” but it still sounds coy and euphemistic to me. 

In other words, you have no idea why there is this illogical juxtaposition either. You have speculated and come up with the tortuous justification above, but it may or may not be correct. This jumping onto and off of words as though they are red hot is the result of oversensitivity, not of ethnic minorities, but of the hand wringing white liberals seeking to avoid offence where in fact none is intended or taken.

[Max Power]

3 minutes ago, HeliX said:

Who are they stirring up racial feelings in?

Many different people on both sides of the argument. There seem to be a lot of black people denouncing the rioting and the protests. Some people obviously are not bothered or are accepting of the current situation?

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

Many different people on both sides of the argument. There seem to be a lot of black people denouncing the rioting and the protests. Some people obviously are not bothered or are accepting of the current situation?

Are those racial feelings though? 

I was objecting to the implication that people see violent protests and blame/change their feelings towards a race. When in reality, the minority of people being violent are from various races, and are better described as unpleasant people than anything else.

[woolley]

3 hours ago, HeliX said:

He's not right though. Stu has absolutely benefited from white privilege. As has every white person in Western countries.

Tell that to a white person living in one room with 3 kids and eating out of a foodbank. Perhaps we should call it "Western privilege" instead. Plenty of black people have benefited from that when compared with the folk in Africa who, even today, may have to walk miles each day for water. Everything is relative. Are you up for sharing global wealth absolutely equally with every person in the world? It sounds like what you are advocating.

[woolley]

3 hours ago, HeliX said:

 

At the simplest level, white privilege is not having your life made more difficult solely due to your skin colour.

Do you disagree that non-white people are judged on their skin colour during their lives? Do you think white people are?

 

Being "colourblind" would be the best solution were we currently on even footing. Until we are I think it's actually quite important to see colour.

Positive discrimination again, then. Not a smart idea.

[HeliX]

2 minutes ago, woolley said:

Tell that to a white person living in one room with 3 kids and eating out of a foodbank. Perhaps we should call it "Western privilege" instead. Plenty of black people have benefited from that when compared with the folk in Africa who, even today, may have to walk miles each day for water. Everything is relative. Are you up for sharing global wealth absolutely equally with every person in the world? It sounds like what you are advocating.

This has been addressed half a dozen times in the last few pages, but that person isn't being treated negatively based solely on their skin colour. If they were black, they would be. On top of everything else.

White privilege is not a suggestion that all white people have great lives or all black people have bad lives. It's simple that white people (in the West at least) are not treated poorly simply for the colour of their skin.

I'm not necessarily up for sharing global wealth entirely equally no, though I do support UBI.

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, woolley said:

Positive discrimination again, then. Not a smart idea.

Taking extra care not to negatively discriminate is not positive discrimination.

 

[Sir Dom]

Go Stu........