Removing TV Shows Because Of Racism

[Nobby_66]

At least the movement to tick an ethnic box on a form had a reason. Either so that you could prove to the government that you were not a racist organisation or to enable the government to gather stats. Many people found it intrusive and refused to tick boxes.

Now on some sites or forms you need to fill in sex/trans info and it is more frequently now mandatory to fill something in. I usually put in the text ‘there only two biological sexes, stop asking people’.

But there are more than two genders.......

 

[Wansalarf]

I must admit, I liked Fletcher's quip, while playing monopoly with Blanco - "No,no that's yer Raquel Welsh - yer Community Chest!". I suppose women could feel that was a bit sexist.

 

[Jerryattrick]

I must admit, I liked Fletcher's quip, while playing monopoly with Blanco - "No,no that's yer Raquel Welsh - yer Community Chest!". I suppose women could feel that was a bit sexist.

My wife and sisters are out and out aggressive feminists from the 60/70s burn yer bra mob and they think anything like that is funny. It was all about women having the same opportunity as men - not becoming men.
Germain Greer who was the darling of that movement is now being chastised by the new identity gang as not feminist enough and transphobic.

 

[ThreeSixes]

It’s only racist / sexist if it causes offence. I think those examples I mention are neither racist nor are they sexist.

What about criminal profiling? Is that racist / sexist? If there is a crime that bears all the hallmarks of a white supremacy, is it racist to devote a disproportionate amount of police resources towards investigation of 20-30 year old, white males who are members of the KKK? I think not.

I would like to understand stop and search figures better. What percentage of black persons who are stopped end up with an offence? And how does that compare with the ratio for whites? Any statistical difference would be an indicator of racist bias and clearly wrong.

Somethings only racist/sexist if it causes offence? Causes offence to who?

Yes, racial profiling is racist. It's pretty much the definition of racism.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

It’s only racist / sexist if it causes offence. I think those examples I mention are neither racist nor are they sexist.

What about criminal profiling? Is that racist / sexist? If there is a crime that bears all the hallmarks of a white supremacy, is it racist to devote a disproportionate amount of police resources towards investigation of 20-30 year old, white males who are members of the KKK? I think not.

I would like to understand stop and search figures better. What percentage of black persons who are stopped end up with an offence? And how does that compare with the ratio for whites? Any statistical difference would be an indicator of racist bias and clearly wrong. And South Park. Is it racist that Chef is a really good soul singer?

If you read the definition i posted earlier, the one that police and CPS use, then you`ll see that all of the examples you quoted could be defined as racist - if anyone thinks that they are/were ! (a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person).

Racism, under the definition, is not confined to behaviour of white persons. Anyone of any ethnic origin can be racist, if anyone perceives their behaviour or involvement in an incident, as racist.

There`s a lot written about stop and search, so plenty out there if you want to read up on it. The fact that more stop and search occurs in more densely populated areas/urban areas isn`t extraordinary. If you believe that a statistical difference would be an indicator of racial bias, then so be it, if you perceive it is racist, then it is.

 

[Jerryattrick]

If you read the definition i posted earlier, the one that police and CPS use, then you`ll see that all of the examples you quoted could be defined as racist - if anyone thinks that they are/were ! (a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person).

Racism, under the definition, is not confined to behaviour of white persons. Anyone of any ethnic origin can be racist, if anyone perceives their behaviour or involvement in an incident, as racist.

There`s a lot written about stop and search, so plenty out there if you want to read up on it. The fact that more stop and search occurs in more densely populated areas/urban areas isn`t extraordinary. If you believe that a statistical difference would be an indicator of racial bias, then so be it, if you perceive it is racist, then it is.

When I was young it was youngsters on motorbikes or scooters and before then teddy boys, mods, rockers. Profiling has always been with us. I also found it annoying being stopped and thrown across the police car bonnet if I was running home late at night, thats human nature.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

When I was young it was youngsters on motorbikes or scooters and before then teddy boys, mods, rockers. Profiling has always been with us. I also found it annoying being stopped and thrown across the police car bonnet if I was running home late at night, thats human nature.

I`m not sure its human nature to throw people across car bonnets

 

[Jerryattrick]

I`m not sure its human nature to throw people across car bonnets

I think it is lol, without controls most humans get carried away. Luckily most manage to keep it under control - always funny as it was generally brand new officers with the more experienced officer rebuking the younger officer :)
The human nature bit was the use of profiling as you know lol.

 

[LancsGordoRoad]

I think it is lol, without controls most humans get carried away. Luckily most manage to keep it under control :) always funny as it was generally brand new officers with the more experience officer rebuking the younger one.

Suppose it saved on polishing the car at the end of a tour of duty .....

 

[Tarian]

Systematic ( ? ) ethnic monitoring began in the 1980s. These sort of arguments have a long lineage.

Since the early '90s I have had on and off involvement in Local Councils.
I do not recall Ethnic Monitoring forms then at all.

If you believe Wikipedia, the Police were the only organisation routinely noting ethnicity prior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom
The first Census to include an ethnicity Question was in 1991
Most "dates" about surveys and questions seem to be from the 2001 Census onward.

Watermelon smiles gets you elected as PM.

And why not ?
What's wrong with a big, cheesy grin ?

Golly hair is such a bizarre and inappropriate thing to say and I cannot actually recall having heard the phrase used.

Why is it "inappropriate" ?
IIRC Andy Murray's hair was once described as "frizzy, like a golly".
Nothing "racial" there.

Ethnic monitoring has perfectly laudable aims and is used by organisations and authorities of all colours and none. No one is obliged to supply the information

EM may have been "sold" as having laudable aims - but plenty of people criticised the EM forms - not least because they mix nationality with race (British, Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Black, White, Chinese etc)

These forms were also seen as "divisive".
If the forms had been used sparingly, the "laudable" claim might have been plausible.
But EM forms appeared everywhere - thus highlighting "difference".

So EM forms have justified activist commentators routinely pigeon-holing people into clone-like "communities".
They can claim "It's not us "pigeon-holing". People voluntarily tick the boxes".

. No one is obliged to supply the information

Except it's Public Authorities (Councils, Schools, NHS etc) who create an expectation of compliance - and some people think they might suffer if they don't comply.

 

[jogills]

Since the early '90s I have had on and off involvement in Local Councils.
I do not recall Ethnic Monitoring forms then at all.

If you believe Wikipedia, the Police were the only organisation routinely noting ethnicity prior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom
The first Census to include an ethnicity Question was in 1991
Most "dates" about surveys and questions seem to be from the 2001 Census onward.


And why not ?
What's wrong with a big, cheesy grin ?


Why is it "inappropriate" ?
IIRC Andy Murray's hair was once described as "frizzy, like a golly".
Nothing "racial" there.


EM may have been "sold" as having laudable aims - but plenty of people criticised the EM forms - not least because they mix nationality with race (British, Irish, Pakistani, Indian, Black, White, Chinese etc)

These forms were also seen as "divisive".
If the forms had been used sparingly, the "laudable" claim might have been plausible.
But EM forms appeared everywhere - thus highlighting "difference".

So EM forms have justified activist commentators routinely pigeon-holing people into clone-like "communities".
They can claim "It's not us "pigeon-holing". People voluntarily tick the boxes".


Except it's Public Authorities (Councils, Schools, NHS etc) who create an expectation of compliance - and some people think they might suffer if they don't comply.

Don't be ridiculous people do not think they will suffer if they do not "comply" with ethnic monitoring questions. If you had processed thousands of forms, which I did from 1989 you would have been aware that responses are random in number and extremely variable. "English, white C of E, St George" one of my favourites. I have some sympathy with some of the doubts about current EM because as our society develops the definitions merge and transform.

Your bias runs through your reply and your choice of 2000 is telling because it fits the narrative of New Labour being responsible for all the ills you choose. Monitoring was regularly called for by the old Commission for Racial Equality from 1978 onwards. Systematic nationwide information on ethnicity was first recorded in the 1980s in the General Household Survey and the Labour Force Survey. I have no interest in which government was in power at the time, it's irrelevant.

EM has been conducted by private organisations for many reasons, some more laudable than others. It is not something pressed on an unwilling worlkd by lefties. A rational discussion of its usefuless might find it wanting but it is weird to suggest that forms could have driven an identity culture. The roots of that are wide, deep and of longstanding. I could just as easily argue that the retreat into a white, indigenous identity started all this and then bang on about it. I won't because that would be daft. I think your daftness radar is malfunctioning.

 

[Jerryattrick]

Don't be ridiculous people do not think they will suffer if they do not "comply" with ethnic monitoring questions. If you had processed thousands of forms, which I did from 1989 you would have been aware that responses are random in number and extremely variable. "English, white C of E, St George" one of my favourites. I have some sympathy with some of the doubts about current EM because as our society develops the definitions merge and transform.

Your bias runs through your reply and your choice of 2000 is telling because it fits the narrative of New Labour being responsible for all the ills you choose. Monitoring was regularly called for by the old Commission for Racial Equality from 1978 onwards. Systematic nationwide information on ethnicity was first recorded in the 1980s in the General Household Survey and the Labour Force Survey. I have no interest in which government was in power at the time, it's irrelevant.

EM has been conducted by private organisations for many reasons, some more laudable than others. It is not something pressed on an unwilling worlkd by lefties. A rational discussion of its usefuless might find it wanting but it is weird to suggest that forms could have driven an identity culture. The roots of that are wide, deep and of longstanding. I could just as easily argue that the retreat into a white, indigenous identity started all this and then bang on about it. I won't because that would be daft. I think your daftness radar is malfunctioning.

Having been involved in diversity training at major corporations it has been developed because companies do not want to be left open to accusations.
The bigger driver though is that yearly those organisations are taken to court by individuals claiming discrimination predominantly after a new job interview.
Going through those court case accusations is eye opening and the imagination of some of these people applying is ‘interesting’ lol.