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
Racism we don't see?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I will probably get flak for this but a couple of things in the news caught my eye, or nearly didn't.
We all have heard and seen the case of antony (I cant remember his last name), the young balck man murdered in liverpool by those 2 white guys in a racist murder. It has been news headlines for various weeks. It truely was a heinous crime.
However there has been a case recently where a white man was brutally beaten and kicked to death. Those guilty of the murder were 3 asian men, whoi were heard to brag about the attack, saying "We killed the white man". Now ont he news this recived around 5 seconds and a few lines in the odd paper. The judge claimed it was not a racist attack despite there been evidence to suggest it was.
I ask why these 2 cases have been treated differently. Why does one get mass coverage and other barely a mention. I know the case in liverpool featured an axe and a step brother of a premiership football player so that makes it more sensational, but I don't see why these 2 should be treated differently.
Is it because when a white person gets attacked by a black or an asian it is not seen as racist even when it may be?
I have also noticed there is not alot of coverage on Black on Asian or Asian on black attacks, except when it explodes into a riot, which we have seen recently.
Why is one form of racism condemned and another ignored when they are the same thing?
We all have heard and seen the case of antony (I cant remember his last name), the young balck man murdered in liverpool by those 2 white guys in a racist murder. It has been news headlines for various weeks. It truely was a heinous crime.
However there has been a case recently where a white man was brutally beaten and kicked to death. Those guilty of the murder were 3 asian men, whoi were heard to brag about the attack, saying "We killed the white man". Now ont he news this recived around 5 seconds and a few lines in the odd paper. The judge claimed it was not a racist attack despite there been evidence to suggest it was.
I ask why these 2 cases have been treated differently. Why does one get mass coverage and other barely a mention. I know the case in liverpool featured an axe and a step brother of a premiership football player so that makes it more sensational, but I don't see why these 2 should be treated differently.
Is it because when a white person gets attacked by a black or an asian it is not seen as racist even when it may be?
I have also noticed there is not alot of coverage on Black on Asian or Asian on black attacks, except when it explodes into a riot, which we have seen recently.
Why is one form of racism condemned and another ignored when they are the same thing?
0
Comments
To be racialy motivated it has to be motivated by race, not by the fact the defendant is a cunt. Walker was motivated by race, as the defendants sought out a black person deliberately; the beating by the Asian was not.
The latter case was also given a lot of media coverage. As was the murder of a white person on the London bus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4479276.stm
Avon and Sommerset police 'possitively' discriminated against white applicants.
"Head of personnel and training, Paul Hazel, said: "The majority of those deselected were white men because the force's workforce is over-represented by white men."
Christopher Yates killing
Anthony Walker killing
well, except for the fact that they attacked people of all races that evening....
Reuters
The killers of Christopher Yates will be serving a minimum of 15 years each. Within a short space of time we will know if that is less than the killers of Anthony Walker get.
Also in the asian on white case, they are quoted as saying "that will show him not to stick his white nose in asian business". I think thats pretty racist.
Yet, if a britain goes abroad, they are expected to observe, respect and follow that cuntries religious traditionsm, such as covering up when entering a place of holy signicance, even whenb it is not your religion, it is 100 degrees out and it is a highly popular tourist attraction.
So if britains have to observe other countries religious identity then why can't the minorities observe britains?
Most of this "PC gone maaaaaaad" crap is just that- crap.
Though as bong says, there are issues with "positive" discrimination.
You're talking through your arse. Hence the total absence of any links to back up your claims.
If it's not your religion, then why go there?
That's as valid as me telling a visitor to take their shoes off.
What percentage of Britains actually go to Church regularly?
We are commonly known as a 'Christian country' but we are clearly now atheistic.
That's exactly it.
You go to Church, and you genuflect before sitting down. You go to Mosque and you take your shoes off and cover up.
What's so bad about that?
It's common courtesy. Something you seem to be lacking, walkindude.
what does your opinion on religion matter? I mean despite poeple saying the church is dead and all that and the numbers that dont go to church, britain is still classed as a christian country.
People go to places for more then rleigion, they go to see sights and such. When peopel go they observe the religious rules. What I am saying, is how can people justify to be offended by christmas imagery when foreign vistors go to their shoires and don't complian about their religious ways.
They act istself isn't bad, as well you know I did not mean, its the respect involved.
While I am not putting loads of links up, watch your tv, read some papers and bit by buit you collect a fair amount of such stories.
This is a politics and debate forum is it not? I am just putting up something to talk about and not be insulted over. Or is it only certain posters who get the privilage of not being insulted.
So even though most British people arent practicing Christians we should celebrate Christmas in a religious way regardless?
Positive discrimination? Crap. If your not good enough, your not good enough.
Why should I accept second class service to meet some halfwits ideas of fairness? Is one way I would put it.
The whole "you HAVE to be tolerant" gets on my tits. Especially when the people involved can't see that they are being intolerant themselves. If you want to play Ned Flanders and tolerate other people's wacky, nutcase beliefs, fine. I've got standards though.
About the courtesy issue, that should work both ways. I am not a christian, so if I find myself in what others see as a church (to me its a big room with a guy in a dress) I will just act normally i.e. no head bowing, knee-bending collection offering mumbo jumbo.
Just because you pray to people shaped rocks doesn't mean I have to join in.
How is that courteous?
Especially when the people asking me to change my behaviour are the ones who waffle on about "tolerance." i.e. you HAVE to be tolerant. Fucking annoying.
So if I wander into your house and piss on the floor, thats fine? I'm being courteous to myself.
Churches bore me to death (archictecture aside), but if I decide to go to a wedding/funeral in one, then I'll be courteous to the church-people. No-one's forcing me to go there.
If someone tried to force me to go, then they'd get told to fuck off.
Well just because the young members or members of this board aren't going to church, doesn't mean britain isn't a predominatly christian country. Even if you don't go to church, many people identify themselves as christian still.
Christmas is a realigious holiday even though it has been so commercialised.
My point is, I don't see anyone's arguement that christmas decorations or rferences to christmas offends them and if it does then they shouldn't be in a place that overtly celebrates christmas and other christian holidays.
Oh shut up whinging.
Your point is being attacked, not you.
Talk about missing the point.
Yes that would be fine as long as you repaired all the damage and cleaned it all up. Probably best if you didn't bother in the first place given the aggravation and cost to yourself. Not kneeling on command from the guy in the dress doesn't actually cause any damage does it?
I'm just mystified as to why you would enter a house of worship (willingly) and then not at least be respectful for the people there. And how you can call that being courteous.
Being called and arse and saying that me personally am not a courteous person IS a personal attack.
And you countered your on post anyway by saying shut up and stop whinging.
Have you actually heard one person make this arguement?
Or, have you heard people say 'we should change this in case it offends someone'?
?
I wa smaking that point in that post as it seemed to draw some critism and confusion.
Did you read my post at all?
Have you heard anyone complain because they are offended by Christmas?
Or have you heard people say that others might be offended by Christmas?
No, its exactly the point.
You go into someone's place of worship, and you obey the rules they have set for themselves in that place of worship. You'd have a point if it was walking about on the street, but if you go into a Church or Mosque then you obey the rules of the people whose Church or Mosque it is.
If you don't like those rules, you don't go in.
If you come in my house you take your shoes off, and you don't smoke inside. It's exactly the same principle- my place, my rules.
Because it's not a house of worship to me? it's just another building. Last time I went into one of those places was to stay out of the rain a good few years ago.
I don't see how doing nothing at all can be seen as rude unless someone else has a bug up their ass. An all that assumes that being offended is something I do, when of course it can't be.
But its not your building either.
If it was your building you'd have some semblance of an argument. It's not, so you don't.
Piffle. I ain't they.
Okay, it's all mine. Now what?
Which I always ignore. I might be in your house, but it's my body, and i'll do what the fuck I like with it, thanks. This means no kneeling, bowing etc. I wouldn't smoke, because that injures you, but that would be the case anywhere. I wouldn't leave my shoes on, that injures your property (or could)