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
The racist libel
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
A number of people, including a monitor have labelled me racist after reading my posts on this board. I can see why, on the immigration poll, I questioned whether increased crime was one consequence of immigration and perhaps more damningly, on the US Arab thread I proposed that it was reasonable to discriminate between groups if all you knew was their group identity. Chances are most people who express those kinds of views are racist and are motivated by hate or fear. I'm not. I simply believe that different groups behave differently. You can draw the line wherever you want, age, gender, education, TV viewing habits or income, you'll get different behaviour, and sometimes you'll be able to predict it. On public transport pensioners behave differently, as a group, than do teenagers. We can all predict some of the differences and in sample after sample we'd be right. Another example, when offered the opportunity to watch porn Arab Muslim farmers and Atheist Yorkshire farmers would behave differently. Again we can predict the differences. I know this and I think we all do. It's not racist to believe that people from different groups behave differently, to really appreciate ethnic diversity it's essential. The most important diversity of all though is the diversity of opinion. My gran shouldn't be abused for preferring to sit with other pensioners, its not ageism, it's her right. It's my right whether or not I choose to watch porn with a group of farmers, it's also my right to express the viewpoint that there'd be more muslims than atheists among those of us not watching. It's a really nasty epithet to toss around, it tends to close down discussion rather than contribute to it, and when tossed in my direction it's really not warranted.
0
Comments
You know this makes me so sad
Their is no group identity, we are all individuals, yes their are similarities, but you can NEVER know someone just from the outside..
There is a group "identity", this can be proven in every sphere of human interaction.
But one cannot preidct individual behaviour using a group identity model. GWST slipped on some ice not very long ago, and everyone who you would deem "respectable" stepped over her- she was helped up by the most "bling" chav you'd ever meet.
Believing that you know what a person is like based on their sklin colour is racist.
Doing a poll where you have an option claiming that "immigrants...gang rape and murder" is incredibly racist.
It's only libel if it's not true, mate.
am i the only one who thought he added that option just to cover the full spectrum of views????
like in my poll on if ud give up porn for gfs, id never say yes, but i put option in
Yeah, but it illustrates his natural bias.
The most "positive" option is:
, which is quite blatantly faectious. And even if it is not, compare "better people" with "gangraping murderer".
He's a racist. He's a troll. I'm amazed Lord Jim of V didn't ban him in the first thread.
you aint fooling me. i'm not sure this post will fool many others either.
Give examples then.
Black males are less academically able.
im sure i could find you a black male who is more intelligent than i am
N***** Can Kill Day and Night? :rolleyes:
Quite by co-incidence I'm sure :rolleyes:, theres a Stormfront member with exactly the same name......
*sorry, not having Stormfront links, for whatever reason*
Hoo boy .................
:rolleyes:
it's statisically true. and therefore a group identity, we have already established that no individual exactly mirrors the group.
i was just backing up that point by offering an example that blew the average statistics out of the water with a hypothetic singular person/entity
What sort of argument is that?
It's statistically true that England has the highest teen pregnancy rate in western Europe, so is that young people in England's group identity, pregnant?
It's statistically true that most convicted paedophiles are white males, is that their group identity then?
If group identities come from statistics, it is more bullshit than i thought.
Well, my guess is that the statistics weren't compiled by black males.....
:cool:
Actually, most convicted paedophiles are women, so you need to check your statistics.
You wanted an example, I gave you one. How's 'women are safer drivers' for you?
Can we have a source for those statistics please?
Bullshit:
In the UK, most identified paedophiles are white adult men. Although women make up only a small percentage of offenders, a larger number knowingly or otherwise facilitate paedophile crimes by providing access to their children or overlooking abuse.
Check out this website, ok:
http://www.ncis.co.uk/ukta/2002/threat09.asp
I understand you were giving me examples, I was just trying to show how bullshit group identity is, yes, if you look on paper black males do less well at school in britain than other races, or women have less accidents but it's not as simple as that, group identity is so vague, that's why i don't like it.
And statistics lie, don't like them at all.
I first found this out while still at school by a talk taken by the chaplin of the maximum security prison near me. Particularly relevant as I went to an all girls school.
As for women being safer drivers, it's common knowledge, but here you go
it's not really the point, only that it's easy to give any groups an identity without it actually being universally true.
ETA: it also makes a lot of sense that most abuse against children would be commited by women, as women have the most access to children.
That hardly backs up the claim that most convicted paedophiles are women ...... and the excerpt fails to mention if that is all forms of childhood abuse, or just sexual abuse....
0/10 - must do better.....
And i found something completely different, this shows how dangerous these statistics are. You can manipulate, lie, make mistakes etc. and you are right it is easy to give groups identities, but it's dangerous too.
Your point about women and abuse is quite interesting though, never thought of that...
People do identify with groups. But these groups are not based on merely skin colour.
What do you base this on? If true is it to do with skin colour, culture, economic or social status in society or something else entirely?
Be very wary of that sort of statistic, especially as it fails to take into account any social or economic factors.
Where are you getting your stats from?
Members of a group identify with each other.
Take the linguistic phenomenon of convergence: when you like someone, you make your voice, your speech patterns and your lexis move towards what the other person is saying.
There are therefore group "identities", though you cannot deduce behavioural patterns from these identities reliably.
Do you finish reading a thread before going off on one at someone? because if you don't it's little more than postwhoring and basic bad manners.