If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
no
Tipex on the screen
And if they do, why exactly, if blond men hearing the above don't?
Is the amount of jokes relevant to if it's an "attack"? Is either kind an "attack" for real? What's your evidence?
Again I cite my example from yesterday. Romans were known for having large noses and this can be seen in some Italians and Romanians today. So my best mate at school who used to have the piss ripped from him for having what some kids regarded as a big nose (even thought he was as Welsh as Tom Jones), would you say he was the victim of racism, using the same logic?
I agree that any form of discrimination that leaves somebody being denied a basic right or level of respect needs to be stamped out. But it feels too many people throw the 'R' word in to the mix as if to give it more sympathy and these are the ones who I feel make the problem worse, it then becomes 'the boy who cried wolf'.
Funny you mention noses. If you to the piss out of a Jew for having a big nose that would be racist, even though plenty of people who aren't Jewish also have big noses.
I think using the racism word is more of a simile in cases like this.
No, it's probably not racism, but it's very nasty regardless. It's as nasty as racism.
Granted - all forms of discrimination are as bad as each other.
This, though because it's not classed as 'racism' it doesn't get taken as seriously. People still suffer bullying, violence and nastiness from strangers. Granted perhaps not as much as others, but it's still the same principal, no matter the reason they're being singled out and if it's 'racist' or not.
And this is the reason why I think people are only too happy to throw the 'R' word around if they feel an issue of discrimination is not being taken seriously enough. I see the problem with this being as I mentioned earlier - people then start to take accusations of 'racism' less seriously ie, the boy who cried wolf.
I never said I think it should be classed as racism - more lamenting the fact that the race/disability card needs to be played before something gets taken seriously, hence why picking on redheads isn't really seen as an issue. Beating someone up or giving them abuse for their race/disability/looks/hair colour or whatever are all just as bad as each other. But redheads aren't covered by societies concern for 'minority groups', so we're kind of just forgotten about.
No I wasn't suggesting I thought you said it should - but I was pointing out that 'racism' is often thrown in to any accusation of discrimination these days, thereby potentially making actual racism less of an issue.
If you say anything negative about a country or nationality these days it seems you'll simply get written off as 'racist'. At most you'd actually be 'Xenophobic' (not that it changes the issue much) unless the comment was aimed at a specific race - when I lived in the East Midland last year and Wales did 'pretty well' in the Home Nations rugby one English person said 'F***ing Welsh!' when I was at work.
My employer at the time asked if I wanted to make a complaint based on racist abuse etc to which I declined immediately because the guy wasn't being racist. Ignorant and xenophobic (not that either really bothered me, I have thicker skin than some) yes but certainly not racist.
I wouldn't let that little issue at work cloud your judgement of the world. The guy in question said something inappropriate in a work environment and you got asked if you wanted to take it further. You chose not to and I probably would have made the same decision because the context he said it in was obviously just banter.
Sarcasm noted and certainly not required
The point of course being where this thread has been heading - where the term 'racism' is being correctly or incorrectly applied.
Hmm, not sure I agree there.
Abuse against gypsies and Irish Travellers is often labelled as "racist", same as abuse against Eastern Europeans. Being from Ireland and being nomadic does not make a community a "race" and nor does being from Poland.
It may be disgusting abuse but it sure as hell ain't racist.
Im sure the blonde women who are not taken seriously, or have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously probably do get pissed off with the stereotype, and noone has ever heard of a blond man joke except you,
:no:
It sure as hell is, and I'm sure it's been explaned to you before.
Roma are a clear seperate ethnic group and so abuse aimed at them is certainly racist. They've been persicuted throughout history and like the Jews suffered genoicide at the hands of the Nazis. Dont kid yourself that it isn't racist.
Irish Travellers also have a legal status as ethnic minority, therefore descrimination and abuse against this group is also racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiziganism
For the Romany people you could make more of an argument that they are a separate ethnic group. Though most travellers are not of Romany descent.
Be wary of using the Holocaust as evidence they're a race; Hitler also exterminated disabled and gay people, but abusing them isn't racist either.
It doesn't make the abuse less disgusting, but it isn't racism despite what the EHRC try and claim.
Irish travellers are of Irish origin only and have a distinct ethnic identity that clearly fits the definition quoted below.
"An ethnic group is defined as one whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits."
How the fuck is it not racist.
The fact you don't realise that 'Irish people' are very different to 'Irish Travellers' suggests to me you should go aways and read up a little bit more on Roma and Irish Travellers before commenting further.
So they're Irish nomads. Being nomadic doesn't make you a separate race of people.
Nor does maintaining separate traditions. Morris dancers maintain separate traditions but they're not a race of people either.
If your going to quote something do it properly. The full quote from wiki
"Irish Travellers (Irish: an lucht siúil) or Pavee are a traditionally nomadic people of ethnic Irish origin, who maintain a set of traditions[1][2] and a distinct ethnic identity."
So they have Irish origins, that is not the same thing as being Irish is it? And being nomadic doesn't mean they can't be an ethnic group. It's racist as they are a distinct seperate ethnic group.
Do you have any prolem with the followng definition of ethnicity?
"An ethnic group is defined as one whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Ethnic identity is also marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits."
And Roma? Are you disputing that they are a seperate ethnic group?
yes im saying its a stereotype based entirely on falsehoods
Romany history makes it a bit more complicated. But they are still essentially just nomadic people from Eastern Europe.