This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Stirlingsays 26 May 14 12.07pm | |
---|---|
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.54am
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 11.37am
Mel Gibson would love all this. So if it's ok to start generalising over 'groups' and their attributes like saying Jews tend to have higher incomes does this means that it's ok to say that Muslims tends to produce extremism in the UK? What's good for the goose and all that. I'm sure there are elements of truth to both statements but personally I don't feel connecting attributes to 'groups' helps the narrative much. It just produces meat for your opponents. I think there's a difference between generalising about something morally neutral (being richer) and generalising about something widely held to be wrong (producing extremism). Livingstone isn't trying to denigrate jews for improving their general economic position, he's just positing this as proof that money makes more difference to voting intention than race. He's saying Catholics are generally poor too, but nobody seems to be worried about that because it's obviously not an attempt to denigrate. Interesting that you feel that saying that some racial groups are generally richer is morally neutral. I wouldn't really see it like that myself. Sure, there isn't the same outrage connected to attributing certain attributes.....But that's an emotional response and surely that's not the gauge as too the validity of the thought process. A sort of, it's ok if what you say is warm and positive or neutral but somehow it's invalid if people don't like it......I don't think that is intellectually good enough. Generalising about group attributes is just ill advised and if you are going to do it and give it validity......Then the gloves come off for everyone.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 26 May 14 12.15pm | |
---|---|
So unsurprisingly ukip pissed it last night. Well done Farage. Well done the media.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 26 May 14 12.21pm | |
---|---|
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 12.07pm
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 11.54am
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 11.37am
Mel Gibson would love all this. So if it's ok to start generalising over 'groups' and their attributes like saying Jews tend to have higher incomes does this means that it's ok to say that Muslims tends to produce extremism in the UK? What's good for the goose and all that. I'm sure there are elements of truth to both statements but personally I don't feel connecting attributes to 'groups' helps the narrative much. It just produces meat for your opponents. I think there's a difference between generalising about something morally neutral (being richer) and generalising about something widely held to be wrong (producing extremism). Livingstone isn't trying to denigrate jews for improving their general economic position, he's just positing this as proof that money makes more difference to voting intention than race. He's saying Catholics are generally poor too, but nobody seems to be worried about that because it's obviously not an attempt to denigrate. Interesting that you feel that saying that some racial groups are generally richer is morally neutral. I wouldn't really see it like that myself. Sure, there isn't the same outrage connected to attributing certain attributes.....But that's an emotional response and surely that's not the gauge as too the validity of the thought process. A sort of, it's ok if what you say is warm and positive or neutral but somehow it's invalid if people don't like it......I don't think that is intellectually good enough. Generalising about group attributes is just ill advised and if you are going to do it and give it validity......Then the gloves come off for everyone.
How about this as a working definition?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
The White Horse 26 May 14 12.27pm | |
---|---|
Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 12.02pm
He is generalising about race. Generalising about race = prejudice. I disagree. It's all about intent isn't it? Whether the generalisation is actually an attempt to denigrate or not. If a Boots in Croydon realises it's not selling much sun cream this summer, they can probably conclude that this is because higher black populations in the area are less likely to feel it's necessary. Generalisation about race, sure, but not "prejudice". Quote matt_himself at 26 May 2014 12.02pm
Prejudice is something you and your ilk have accused UKIP of repeatedly and yet it appears that the left are able to do this. However, when you point it out, it appears, from your perspective, that it is an intelligent piece of commentary as opposed to a piece of prejudice against a group of people he has aimed comments at previously. Interesting perspective Horsey. It is an intelligent piece of commentary, more useful than the facile claim that "BME people are far more likely to vote Labour". Some ethnic groups will generally be more likely to vote for Labour but others not, so it's worth looking at how sub-groups of BME voters act differently. If Ken has made insensitive comments about jews before (maybe you could link me to an Andrew Gilligan piece about it) then they may be an ill-judged group to use in such an example, but one of the best ways to find out why a particular ethnic group votes a particular way is to look at examples where this tendency has changed. Chinese people might be an interesting example because in the UK there are a significant number who are probably having more success in education, employment and business than they would have been when immigrants first arrived. But obviously they've come from an area with an, erm, 'strong left-wing tradition'.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 May 14 12.29pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 26 May 2014 12.21pm
How about this as a working definition?
?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 May 14 12.34pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 26 May 2014 12.15pm
So unsurprisingly ukip pissed it last night. Well done Farage. Well done the media. Oh it's partly the media's fault is it?.....Most of their coverage was negative...Telling us how to think...Loads of 'Ukip is racist'. Still, you couldn't shut up about them.....You pretty much cemented my vote. Well done Nick.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
legaleagle 26 May 14 12.37pm | |
---|---|
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 12.29pm
Quote legaleagle at 26 May 2014 12.21pm
How about this as a working definition?
? working definition of racism...as opposed to generalisations that aren't racist
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
The White Horse 26 May 14 12.41pm | |
---|---|
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 12.07pm
Interesting that you feel that saying that some racial groups are generally richer is morally neutral. I wouldn't really see it like that myself. Sure, there isn't the same outrage connected to attributing certain attributes.....But that's an emotional response and surely that's not the gauge as too the validity of the thought process. A sort of, it's ok if what you say is warm and positive or neutral but somehow it's invalid if people don't like it......I don't think that is intellectually good enough. Generalising about group attributes is just ill advised and if you are going to do it and give it validity......Then the gloves come off for everyone. I disagree. The problem with generalisations/prejudice, as I see it, is that by treating everyone as if the stereotype applies to them, you make mistakes. If you don't give your black mate sun cream because you assume he wouldn't want/need any and he gets skin cancer, the stereotype has created an externality. But if Boots in Croydon lower how much they order every month to prevent a surplus, they're not only not causing any problems (since supply still meets demand) and they're actually saving money. In this case, Ken Livingstone is highlighting the broadly improved position of jews financially, but is that really likely to cause any problems? He's not suggesting they be taxed more or anything, he's just trying to establish that financial status is what has the biggest effect upon voting intention rather than race. If you can explain why this claim might harm jewish people either individually or as a collective, I might be happy to say it's problematic, but i can't see it myself.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 May 14 12.46pm | |
---|---|
Quote The White Horse at 26 May 2014 12.41pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 12.07pm
Interesting that you feel that saying that some racial groups are generally richer is morally neutral. I wouldn't really see it like that myself. Sure, there isn't the same outrage connected to attributing certain attributes.....But that's an emotional response and surely that's not the gauge as too the validity of the thought process. A sort of, it's ok if what you say is warm and positive or neutral but somehow it's invalid if people don't like it......I don't think that is intellectually good enough. Generalising about group attributes is just ill advised and if you are going to do it and give it validity......Then the gloves come off for everyone. I disagree. The problem with generalisations/prejudice, as I see it, is that by treating everyone as if the stereotype applies to them, you make mistakes. If you don't give your black mate sun cream because you assume he wouldn't want/need any and he gets skin cancer, the stereotype has created an externality. But if Boots in Croydon lower how much they order every month to prevent a surplus, they're not only not causing any problems (since supply still meets demand) and they're actually saving money. In this case, Ken Livingstone is highlighting the broadly improved position of jews financially, but is that really likely to cause any problems? He's not suggesting they be taxed more or anything, he's just trying to establish that financial status is what has the biggest effect upon voting intention rather than race. If you can explain why this claim might harm jewish people either individually or as a collective, I might be happy to say it's problematic, but i can't see it myself.
I give up Horsey....You can have this one.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 26 May 14 12.49pm | |
---|---|
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 12.34pm
Quote nickgusset at 26 May 2014 12.15pm
So unsurprisingly ukip pissed it last night. Well done Farage. Well done the media. Oh it's partly the media's fault is it?.....Most of their coverage was negative...Telling us how to think...Loads of 'Ukip is racist'. Still, you couldn't shut up about them.....You pretty much cemented my vote. Well done Nick. So you voted for the regression of maternity rights then. You voted for full scale privatisation of the NHS.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 May 14 12.52pm | |
---|---|
Quote legaleagle at 26 May 2014 12.37pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 12.29pm
Quote legaleagle at 26 May 2014 12.21pm
How about this as a working definition?
? working definition of racism...as opposed to generalisations that aren't racist I see what you mean (I'd missed one of your posts). Well your definition sounds about right but stating that 'Muslims tend to produce more extremism in the Uk' isn't a racist statement if it is factually true. Maybe an uncomfortable one but there you go. My point is that generalising about groups is stereotyping and doesn't really help matters.....But if you are going to do it then the gloves should be off for everybody.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 May 14 12.55pm | |
---|---|
Quote nickgusset at 26 May 2014 12.49pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 26 May 2014 12.34pm
Quote nickgusset at 26 May 2014 12.15pm
So unsurprisingly ukip pissed it last night. Well done Farage. Well done the media. Oh it's partly the media's fault is it?.....Most of their coverage was negative...Telling us how to think...Loads of 'Ukip is racist'. Still, you couldn't shut up about them.....You pretty much cemented my vote. Well done Nick. So you voted for the regression of maternity rights then. You voted for full scale privatisation of the NHS. Na....You know what I voted for.....I was a tiny part of the collective two fingers to the EU federalists. I want a decentralised EU.....For that to happen messages have to be sent.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.