Very true -- there has been no sensible and informed national debate since the Fifties if not even earlier. Could it be that more homogeneous societies like Japan (and even China) actually have quite a lot going for them?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Chinese people holding racially prejudiced views
- Thread starter Johnuk123
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I am sure Phil will be a lot "less racist" in future thanks to your intervention. I was explicit in my last post about why I believe a lot of people like calling other people racists. It confirms their own self-worth.
Do you think that our inability to debate immigration without calling Brexiteers racists was a factor in the EU referendum? Do you think a debate is best served by calling out people's opinions - no matter how ill-informed - as racist (a serious slur, btw)?
In general, most people are nice people. Perhaps it is better to start from there and be a little more gentle instead of insulting them.
You seem to have a lack of self-awareness or street-wisdom. Perhaps these will come in time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Careful, insinuating societies might be better comprising one race only might be racist, Senex (!)
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Why are you trying to make this about immigration? That isn't a debate we were having.
And no, he probably won't be. But there is a strong taboo around racism in younger people, and reinforcing that is a positive thing. Or would you prefer we ostracised people based on their colour instead of people who ostracise and discriminate against others?
As I asked before: what do you suggest people do when confronted with racism? Calling t a 'slur' only serves to make it impossible to combat (although I noticed you said nothing when someone used a now-deleted racial slur earlier in the thread). Saying I'm only doing it for my own gratification is a common tactic to shut down any instance of something you don't like: racism harms people, so there is a very obvious reason why people tend not to tolerate it. Saying "people are generally nice" is limp: people were "generally nice" 300 years ago, but they were still incredibly sexist.
As for your comments on my wisdom: don't conflate someone's online presence with how they behave offline. Many of those comfortable in their unconscious prejudices find that they aren't tolerated online precisely because they aren't in their comfort-zone anymore: that is a good thing. It's quite difficult to tactfully get people to confront their own prejudices in this format.
(And yes, implying monoracialism is good is indeed quite racist - why do you have such a problem with people saying that? Might it be because it might make you uncomfortable about some of you own views? Since we're speculating about motives, after all.)
Last edited:
To be honest with you, I think the vast majority will accept that Japan is a homogeneous society and will most likely stay that way since they haven't gone through the rights movement that the U.S. and the U.K. has.
1. I'm not trying to make it about immigration. I'm illustrating how, if you shut down un-PC opinions with the racist card, it ends up being unproductive and you're unlikely to win the debate by doing so. It is people who behaved in exactly the same way that you did upthread that shut the door on a proper debate on immigration; it hardened opinions on both sides.
2. I disagree that Phil is a racist. I would not have said what he said, nor used his tone, but there is some substance to what he feels. Other posters were more constructive, by asking him why he feels that way - a much better tactic than saying "racist". Dismissing him as a racist adds nothing to the debate. In the past you have dismissed other posters as unintelligent (at one point directly implying one poster was so stupid he was unaware he was stupid).
3. You correctly state that segregation in the USA was partly based on violent crime in black communities without consideration given as to *why* there was crime. All well and good. Nevertheless -:- Would you have walked in a black ghetto in 1950? Would you walk at night through Compton, or Ferguson, in 2016? (I make the assumption you're a white male)
Not wanting to walk in certain communities does not make you automatically a racist.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
I will ask again: how do you propose people combat racism when confronted with it?
And by even a primary school definition, Phil was being racist: "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior." It doesn't matter if that superiority is attempted to be justified: the fact is it was on display. (Or are we really going to think that his thoughts on white communities are the same?)
And you're right: not wanting to go into a particular community is all very well - not wanting to go into a particular community because black people live there is very different.
Last edited:
RichmondCommu
Established Member
So why are you apprehensive about being around Black people or Pakistanis? As opposed to being around mean, nasty and aggressive white people? And believe me there are plenty of those in Greater London and the SE.
I'm fairly open minded about how people combat racism. It's not something I have a monopoly on, but I would certainly suggest that people explain why their prejudices might be irrational rather than just saying they're a racist, for sure.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
I did explain; I just also used the word racism. Why does that word get up your goat so much?
I know it's not a nice thing to be called, but like I said, if you're more concerned for the feelings of a person being called racist than people who are on the receiving end of racial discrimination then you have your priorities wrong.
I've explained a few times why calling people racists isn't productive. It damages the debate, and it's exactly that sort of name-calling, justified or not, that means we are now leaving the EU rather than staying in it (I'm using that example because I know that like me you were a Remainer).
You did not explain why the prejudices were wrong. You overtly called Phil a racist - twice - and only explained why the prejudices were irrational - to me, not Phil - once I had posted.
To suggest that I had my priorities wrong because I quite simply pointed out that calling Phil a racist was a) probably uncalled for, b) harming the debate and c) not actually a way of winning the debate against people who are racist, is just another way of dismissing my contribution, or perhaps to patronise me. I can be quite unequivocal about this - you are unable to patronise me. I can quite easily see through it and I suggest you rethink your tactics. I have noted with interest your continued attempts to patronise others (and I'll repeat again, you directly implied another poster was so stupid he was unable to realise he was stupid).
TheKnightWho
Established Member
It's not name-calling: it is what it is. It only damages debate if people aren't willing to consider why the word is being used, and that's a problem with them and not with those who are saying it.
a) It was absolutely called for. It's textbook racism, and burying your head in the sand is not going to change that. I noticed that your attempts to defend it tried to justify it, and didn't explain how it wasn't racial prejudice.
b) The only thing that has harmed the debate is your obsession with not calling racism what it is.
c) It's not about "winning a debate": it's about enforcing the taboo against racism. Why do you have an issue with that? I might as well ask why you're defending racism!
Frankly, I don't care how many times you call me patronising: the issue here is that you continue to be more bothered about someone using the word racism than racism itself: why is that? I think there is a major issue here with you assuming I'm only bothered about racism because of my own ego, and indeed you have made assumptions about my identity. Frankly, I can only assume that it's because you don't want to admit that this kind of racism does have real-world consequences, and that it does have very real effects that you clearly haven't considered.
Last edited:
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
I don't believe Phil.'s comment was overtly racist enough to deem him deserving of the label of a racist. In fact a comment just before that (from one of our moderators) set my spidey-sense off more.
As much as I oppose racism in all forms (and acknowledging my white privilege) I don't believe tarring and feathering people for what is a feeling/opinion they have (in this case at worst it was ignorant imo) is very productive in terms of fighting prejudice.
As much as I oppose racism in all forms (and acknowledging my white privilege) I don't believe tarring and feathering people for what is a feeling/opinion they have (in this case at worst it was ignorant imo) is very productive in terms of fighting prejudice.
Gosh don't people who don't read posts get excited? Am I racist? No I'm not, some of - indeed many of - my friends and now ex colleagues are of a different race from me although they all belong to the human race. I rather think that many of you have fallen for the SWP trick of labelling anyone who makes a remark that they don't like a racist. Now, if you care to carefully read my post again you'll see that I stated that, "...I'd think twice before wandering alone at night....". I'm not a young man anymore although I'm still fairly presentable at 66. Many of us old(er) 'uns tend to be a little apprehensive nowadays about being alone in the dark. I really wouldn't want to wander around Brixton or Peckham at night or in some parts of Luton or Bradford. I'm not being discriminatory, I'm being practical. For what it's worth I was never too happy about taking to the streets of South Wimbledon/Tooting in the wee small hours either. Have a read of the newspaper of your choice and/or listen to the news on the radio or watch the same on the idiot box. How many times do you read/hear of Indians being arrested for street violence/murder/rape/honour killing? Now compare the other two. "But you haven't mentioned whites Phil". No I haven't, the Chinese weren't talking about whites. See how easy it is to fall into the trap of calling someone a racist without thinking first?
TheKnightWho
Established Member
What you said was that the Air China statement was correct in labelling areas with populations of black people and Pakistanis dangerous.
What you have just said in your quote above is quite distinctly different. The idea that I'm labelling it racist because I don't like it and not because it's textbook racism is, frankly, insulting to everyone's intelligence, and trying to patronise people by saying that it's just because you don't like wandering around areas at night is one of the most disingenuous things I've read all day. I'm not stupid - I can read what you wrote:
Are you really expecting people to read that and think that you weren't distinguishing between areas based on the race of people that live in them? Justifying it is not the same as saying that you aren't drawing a distinction on race: people have been trying to justify racism for centuries; it doesn't stop it being racist.
Last edited:
It doesn't look like we are going to convince each other. Nor does it seem you have convinced Phil he's a racist.
Again, you accuse me of having my priorities wrong. It is the simplest of debate distraction techniques - you must try harder. At no point have I suggested that racism is not an issue, in fact quite the opposite! I have stated on at least two occasions that your *tactics* are not conducive to fighting racism.... :roll:
I haven't suggested the only reason you're bothered about racism is your own ego. I've suggested that the only reason your first and second contributions to the thread were to say "you're racist" were wrong, probably unsubstantiated, unproductive, and a result of ego. There's a difference there.
I made assumptions about your identity (and was explicit at the time that these were assumptions) so I could use race-relevant examples in a previous post. No crime there.
-Curious Question-
Does having a similar skin colour to the colour of the majority of a neighbourhood makes you less vulnerable to crime against you?
I've been in Peckham at dark and can't say I've felt threatened before. Then again, I was really young...
Does having a similar skin colour to the colour of the majority of a neighbourhood makes you less vulnerable to crime against you?
I've been in Peckham at dark and can't say I've felt threatened before. Then again, I was really young...
TheKnightWho
Established Member
I'll ask you yet again: why does someone not tolerating racism annoy you more than someone being racist? You might profess that racism is wrong, but you have ignored instances on this thread (such as one I pointed out), and have solely concentrated on me being annoyed with it. You've still yet to provide an argument that Phil wasn't being racist that doesn't boil down to you trying to justify his racism, as opposed to genuinely explaining how he wasn't discriminating between people based on their race. You're acting like I'm being rash and stupid, but frankly I think you're giving the benefit of the doubt without justification, and seem to be trying to silence the person who is explaining how it is, indeed, racist.
And as for my tactics. I am sick of seeing this kind of racism tolerated and even defended: patronising me by calling by childish (now there's some psychological projection going on in your posts...) isn't going to change that, and indeed it simply makes it more difficult for people to point out when certain attitudes are unacceptable.
Last edited:
I haven't seen anyone be racist. I wouldn't call someone a racist based on what's said on an Internet forum.
I've seen people take the wrong tone, or write silly things, or say things which I find ignorant. But I'm afraid I disagree that there has been racism.
I haven't called you childish.
I don't get more annoyed by someone saying "racist" than someone actually being a genuine racist themselves. Insinuating that is wrong, there is no evidence for it in this thread, and is a barmy accusation.
Please do continue to imply I am a racist, or at least not bothered by racism, in your own time. Because I'm afraid at this point of the debate that is all you have left.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Well you have spent an entire thread arguing it so far - and hey, you're the one who started speculating on motivations first.
And I have pointed out on several occasions why it was racist - you have simply said "I disagree" and have provided no reasons as to why it was not (indeed, all you did was try to justify it). Claiming victory without actually addressing this is vacuous, more than anything.
You can continue to feel superior as much as you like, but until you address either of those things this conversation is not going to move forward.
I have addressed all of these points before. Are you asking me to define racism? How can one accurately define such a term? It's a base emotion, like hate, or love - you know it when you see it but trying to use a form of words to wrap it in a neat envelope is probably insufficient.
We could use the dictionary, as you did earlier, but we should note that
TheKnightWho said:
Ultimately, the debate is then reduced to the definitions of words. I am not interested in going there; how dull.
If your instinct in these kinds of debates is to call people racist, or insinuate that people who say "hang on that's a bit harsh" are not concerned about racism, then you should be prepared for people to take you up on that.
I maintain that jumping in with a first and second contribution calling someone - quite directly - a racist, was unfair, unproductive, and unwarranted. It is very clear that you had no interest in explaining your own concept of racism until pushed into it.
We'll leave it to others, I guess, and I'm quite happy for them to judge whether they think I'm a racist, a racism enabler, "someone who attacks anti-racists" or perhaps none of these. I have made more than enough posts on this topic and I don't feel I need to defend myself from your ridiculous assertions.
Last edited:
TheKnightWho
Established Member
It's textbook racism. You've managed to take a statement that is about not going by simplistic definitions when it is possible to improve on them, and turned it into "well we can't define anything, so I can say this isn't racist if I want to!" That's sophistry, and it's an argument that backs you into endless definitional debates when it's quite simple to counter me by giving me a useful definition of racism which that isn't covered by.
In what way is there a problem with me saying that this is racist? What about it is not racist, in your view? It's telling that you're dodging the question instead of answering it.
And if you want to know the reason I didn't explain it? Because my immediate reaction was "that is extremely racist, and it is very obvious that it is" - because most people understand that avoiding people simply because they're black is discriminating against people based on their race. When it became obvious that certain people such as yourself were going to dispute this, I felt the need to elaborate. Trying to paint me as hysterical is a) disingenuous, and b) continues to fail to understand that 'that is racist' is not an insult: it's a comment about the nature of the thing being said. It can't be equated with "you're an idiot" or "f*** off".
Last edited:
theageofthetra
Established Member
I found on my month long holiday in China earlier this year to be a constant source of requests for selfies with the locals.
At many of the major tourist sights the vast majority (90%) of visitors are indigenous Chinese learning about their 3000+ years of history. Their TV & movies are a relentless series of Chinese historical dramas interspersed with mad DRK made anti Japanese war films- they now all want to explore these histories.
Many of these visitors are from rural regions of China who are able to freely travel and can afford to for the first time ever. They have often never seen anyone non Chinese in their lives and see us as bizarrely something to show off to their friends back home. I must have had 20 selfies taken with me just on The Great Wall and probably another 50+ elsewhere on my travels.
The Chinese I met have a thirst for understanding and knowledge that would shame us, with even pre schoolers desperate to try a few English words when they see a tourist much to the pride of the doting grandparents they will inevitably be with.
They are also arguably the most risk adverse travellers in world tourism (way more than the USA) & will stop visiting anywhere they feel unsafe. Aside from student exchanges Paris tourism from China has collapsed following the Islamic atrocities in France.
They also have suffered acts of terrorism by extremists in their own indigenous muslim population and are understandably cautious. Security on all forms of Chinese transport is very strict with airport style checks at every subway station. You can't even enter a mainline railway station (airports too now) without full security checks.
London crime/terrorism is a worry to them but it runs headlong into the desire (particularly amongst the young) to learn about British history for which they have an odd fascination and of course to speak the language- which is seen as a sign of sophistication and education which is core to their culture.
I don't think this advice is any different to that offered by our own FO on its travel advice website. Its just reads in a way that is well just 'China being China' Also much of their language just doesn't directly translate so there is interpretation which can make it sound worse than it is. You see English translations of signs in China that range from the bonkers to outrageously offensive.
Its just the way they are and makes China one of the most incredible places you will visit and why I will be back next year.
At many of the major tourist sights the vast majority (90%) of visitors are indigenous Chinese learning about their 3000+ years of history. Their TV & movies are a relentless series of Chinese historical dramas interspersed with mad DRK made anti Japanese war films- they now all want to explore these histories.
Many of these visitors are from rural regions of China who are able to freely travel and can afford to for the first time ever. They have often never seen anyone non Chinese in their lives and see us as bizarrely something to show off to their friends back home. I must have had 20 selfies taken with me just on The Great Wall and probably another 50+ elsewhere on my travels.
The Chinese I met have a thirst for understanding and knowledge that would shame us, with even pre schoolers desperate to try a few English words when they see a tourist much to the pride of the doting grandparents they will inevitably be with.
They are also arguably the most risk adverse travellers in world tourism (way more than the USA) & will stop visiting anywhere they feel unsafe. Aside from student exchanges Paris tourism from China has collapsed following the Islamic atrocities in France.
They also have suffered acts of terrorism by extremists in their own indigenous muslim population and are understandably cautious. Security on all forms of Chinese transport is very strict with airport style checks at every subway station. You can't even enter a mainline railway station (airports too now) without full security checks.
London crime/terrorism is a worry to them but it runs headlong into the desire (particularly amongst the young) to learn about British history for which they have an odd fascination and of course to speak the language- which is seen as a sign of sophistication and education which is core to their culture.
I don't think this advice is any different to that offered by our own FO on its travel advice website. Its just reads in a way that is well just 'China being China' Also much of their language just doesn't directly translate so there is interpretation which can make it sound worse than it is. You see English translations of signs in China that range from the bonkers to outrageously offensive.
Its just the way they are and makes China one of the most incredible places you will visit and why I will be back next year.
Let's go over it again. I've only explained it twice so far. It is really simple, and my argument against you consists solely of:
1) Calling someone a racist is a pretty serious matter. It is a dirty thing to be.
2) You'd therefore better have some pretty conclusive evidence for it.
3) A single daft, poorly thought out post on a forum about trains is not, in my view, enough to say to a man "you are a racist".
I haven't said "we can't define anything."
You clearly don't like being taken up on your tactic of jumping in and calling people racists (or indeed that people are so stupid they are unaware that they're stupid). Do not try to move the goalposts.
Perhaps you could apologise to Phil?
Harbornite
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 May 2016
- Messages
- 3,627
When Phil said that he would avoid black and Pakistani communities at night but not Indian ones can be interpreted as being racist.
No: "you are racist" is an insult. Most people would be insulted if they were called a racist.
I've not tried to suggest you're hysterical. I've suggested that you were too quick to call a man a racist, that's all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, I quite agree. It could be. The comment irritated me on first reading.
I do not think Phil is a racist or deserved to be called a racist. I have not seen enough evidence of Phil's character to make this accusation. I've seen a single badly worded internet post on a train forum.
There's a big difference there.
Last edited:
TheKnightWho
Established Member
1) A lot of people are racist without realising they are. That doesn't make it a crime - but it should make you look at yourself if you're called out on it.
2) The conclusive evidence is that Phil agreed with the statement that people should avoid areas with black people and Pakistanis. Avoiding people because they're black or Pakistani is racist, because it's discriminating against them based on their race.
3) It was daft... but it was still racist. I'm not saying that Phil is a monster, or that he regularly goes around being a huge racist, or that he believes in his heart of hearts that black people are inferior etc. I said that that statement was one of the most racist things I have seen on this forum recently.
It is very obvious you have a major problem with racism ever being called out. I would advise you to have a serious think about why that is, because I don't want to jump to conclusions but ignoring racism (as I have pointed out and you have ignored twice) but being outraged by someone saying that a statement is racist is a rather odd position for you to hold when it is pretty conclusively racist. As I have explained numerous times yet you have come back with nothing more than "no it isn't" and tried to imply I was casting aspersions on everything that Phil believes. Your strawman isn't relevant here: the fact is that that statement in particular was racist, and you have provided nothing to show that it isn't.
You must be having a laugh if you think I'm going to apologise for not tolerating racism. What is this? 1950?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It doesn't matter if they're insulted. The point is that it's a statement about the character of what they said, and not something said purely to offend or to make them upset. Perhaps next time you see an accusation of racism you could ask yourself why they're saying that, and not cast aspersions on their rationality or make out like they're too young to know the implications of what they're saying (and don't pretend that that isn't what you implied).
Last edited:
Harbornite
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 May 2016
- Messages
- 3,627
Well what are you saying then? Are you suggesting that the post is racist but the poster isn't?
Also, calling someone racist (with justification) is not as bad as being racist.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
Precisely.
- Status