Do we arbitrarily choose to be offended ?

[miga]

What about front buggering, though, is that OK?

[adonirum]

No offence taken, Jah Lush. This is not a wind-up, trolling or anything else of that kind. Interesting though that you possibly feel that way in the here and now, when we have partaken in debate on here within other threads.

It's an interesting concept that on this forum when some contributors have a diametrically opposed point of view to others, they are immediately dismissed in such manner (a troll) with no regard to their past history of posting, or they are ridiculed/insulted en-masse. There are a few posters that indulge like that on here, and I prefer to engage with those who might start a post with "I disagree with you because" or "I think you are wrong because". As an example, it appears that Dulwich Fox is one such "victim", coming in for a fair amount of abuse these days, when in the past he appeared to be one of the chosen few. Then again, perhaps it is just a bit of banter between people who know each other.

Just picking up on the Blah Blah point of "accident", they then went on to dismiss "circumstance", thus consolidating their position of "accident", with the implication,as an accident, that it can be fixed.

It's been said before on here that the only way to know is face-to-face, whereby tone of voice, facial expression, body language etc can be used to determine the actual nature of what is being said. Perhaps we are getting off course here, but then again maybe we have come full circle back to the title of the thread.

[uncleglen]

Adonirum said that when children are young they happily play together. This reminded me of when a colleague and I were looking out onto a secondary school playground and she said, 'Look at that', and I looked and did not realise until she pointed it out that all the Chinese kids were in one area, all the Africans were in another area and the English kids were in another area....there were a couple of mixed race kids in with the English, and a couple in the African area. There was football going on and that had a mixture of kids- so yes they will all PLAY together but maybe not socialise when they grow up and gravitate towards people with the same ethnic background

[red devil]

Uncleglen, all the kids, assuming they were born here, are English. Do you have a problem with that?...

[Otta]

Red Devil is of course correct.

However, I do think it's fair to say that kids will often gravitate towards other kids from similar backgrounds, because that's what they're most comfortable with. Friendships are then made, and those groups are cemented. Obviously there is (and should be more) crossover, but I do think that is largely how it goes.

[red devil]

I agree Ots, but it doesn't just stop at race. In a mixed school you will find boys and girls in separate groups, boys who like football, boys who don't etc. It's all about identity and forming connections. And it's not exclusive to children, it's a human trait, fundamentally we're a very 'tribal' species...

[KidKruger]

I think all species are tribal or exclusive (on an individual basis for some species).

[Otta]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree Ots, but it doesn't just stop at race. In

> a mixed school you will find boys and girls in

> separate groups, boys who like football, boys who

> don't etc. It's all about identity and forming

> connections. And it's not exclusive to children,

> it's a human trait, fundamentally we're a very

> 'tribal' species...

Yep, agreed. I was very much part of "the music lot" at school, but also played rugby which widened the pool of people I interacted with.

Music was the best in my school because it was all boys, but if you were a music student you got to be in mixed choir / bands, and access the girls school. Hurrah!

[LondonMix]

The problem with McCarthyism isn't that it was anti-communist. At the time communism was a genuine political threat.

If you actually look up the definition of McCarthyism it is:

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

McCarthy used his ability to ruin people with little or no evidence as a powerful weapon. He was ruining people not because he genuinely had reason to believe they were communists but for other reasons and as such became a tyrant.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But McCarthyism, at its core, was American

> society's (at the time) belief that communism was

> morally wrong. You have a list of things that are

> currently deemed morally wrong. Why is it

> different? Why do we believe that McCarthyism was

> wrong, but this modern day version of McCarthyism

> is OK?

>

> Especially as all the things you list are rather

> haphazardly enforced. And this rather goes to the

> nub of this entire thread, because these days they

> are generally 'enforced' by the professionally

> offended twitter mob. Thus Tim Hunt is hounded

> out of his job, but Diane Abbott (who has said

> things, IMHO, worse than Hunt did) is left alone.

> There is no constancy. In fact, there is serious

> inconsistency. For instance, Julie Burchill, who

> would fail your list of bad beliefs with her

> remarks on transexuals, would be free to join the

> police force (age requirements notwithstanding).

>

> The other curiosity about the police's list is

> that one of the proscribed organizations is the

> BNP - a completely legal political party. So if

> you legally run for parliament for the BNP, you

> are immediately banned from being a policeman.

> How, in any sane system, is that valid?

> Especially as I am pretty sure some joined the BNP

> about 10-15 years ago (when they were regularly

> winning council seats) for reasons other than

> racism.

>

> (Just to note that I have absolutely no love for

> the BNP, et al. This purely down to freedom of

> political thought - even for those I fundamentally

> disagree with.)

[LondonMix]

The point with the police is that if you hold beliefs that present a heightened risk to the public that you won't be able to impartially enforce the law (which is the legal requirement), then you can't be put in that position of power. Those that don't believe all people are equal cannot be entrusted to enforce the law equitably. Its common sense, not political exclusion.

adonirum Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Blah Blah, this is definitely not any form of

> trolling. I have not attacked any poster on this

> thread for their contribution.

>

> As I stated in my opening, I spent two years in

> diversification and equality service delivery

> training and remain very interested in people's

> viewpoints on this whole subject.

>

> As a slight aside and (maybe) to broaden the

> debate, when it comes to being an equal

> opportunities employer then it could be arqued

> that there is no such thing. People holding

> homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist/etc views are

> generally excluded from public service

> institutions (and other employers), therefore do

> these sections of society become discriminated

> against? The Police service particularly excludes

> any person that is/was a member of a right-wing

> fascist neo nazi organisation, thereby

> contradicting their own stated "regardless

> of........political persuasion".

[LondonMix]

I'm not sure race is one of the more obvious lines people separate themselves into unless race and culture overlap significantly. In London, I actually find that friendship groups are very mixed (certainly compared to the US). If you think your race makes you very culturally different, then you will gravitate towards people of your skin color but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

The number of mixed race marriages in my office (not just black white, but white-Asian, etc) is close to a 33%. Interestingly enough, I think class defines people's identity even more so than race in this country. There was survey a while back in which parents would be most concerned about their children marrying someone of a different class (much more so than race, country, them being gay etc).

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree Ots, but it doesn't just stop at race. In

> a mixed school you will find boys and girls in

> separate groups, boys who like football, boys who

> don't etc. It's all about identity and forming

> connections. And it's not exclusive to children,

> it's a human trait, fundamentally we're a very

> 'tribal' species...

[????]

LM - It's kind of an aside but the thing that always strikes me about the US (other than the race thing which is massive) is job status. I've done a fair bit of work with US companies and colleagues and what you do for work and your job title is massively more important to the average american than brit. Just some quick examples:

- seniority matters immensley in US corporate culture, so management is more autocratic; your stated opinion has to align with the boss around ideas etc or keep it to yourself; NEVER be later to a meeting than a senior person; The work status thing is why there's such job title inflation in the US ( everyone in US company is a Vice President of something, whatever they do)

- Casual talk with US people reverts to 'what do you do' really quickly; i've known people in the UK for years and still don't have a scoobey what they do and vise versa

- Mnay US people will ask you what you earn pretty quickly, almost unheard of here

[Loz]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point with the police is that if you hold

> beliefs that present a heightened risk to the

> public that you won't be able to impartially

> enforce the law (which is the legal requirement),

> then you can't be put in that position of power.

> Those that don't believe all people are equal

> cannot be entrusted to enforce the law equitably.

> Its common sense, not political exclusion.

But there are many parts to that rule that deal with people who have been convicted of race crimes. But 10-15 years ago, people joined the BNP for many reasons, not all of them racist (worries about immigration levels being one of them). And while there are/were, no question, people with racist attitudes in the BNP, reflecting that against each and every member of the BNP political party is guilt by association.

Tarring them all with the same brush has got to be classed as political exclusion.

[LondonMix]

I agree with all of that. I think that partly has to do with the fact that social prestige is more linked to what you do than traditional British class. For instance, without knowing anything about someone in this country, from the moment they open their mouth their class is usually pretty clear. Once you know a few things about them (where they went to school, what sports the follow, etc my guess is you can nail in with more than 90% accuracy). In the US, that is less the case and real social prestige comes from what you are vs what your parents or ancestors were. And upper class British people (I work with a lot of them) immediately ask people where they went to school.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LM - It's kind of an aside but the thing that

> always strikes me about the US (other than the

> race thing which is massive) is job status. I've

> done a fair bit of work with US companies and

> colleagues and what you do for work and your job

> title is massively more important to the average

> american than brit. Just some quick examples:

>

> - seniority matters immensley in US corporate

> culture, so management is more autocratic; your

> stated opinion has to align with the boss around

> ideas etc or keep it to yourself; NEVER be later

> to a meeting than a senior person; The work status

> thing is why there's such job title inflation in

> the US ( everyone in US company is a Vice

> President of something, whatever they do)

> - Casual talk with US people reverts to 'what do

> you do' really quickly; i've known people in the

> UK for years and still don't have a scoobey what

> they do and vise versa

> - Mnay US people will ask you what you earn pretty

> quickly, almost unheard of here

[LondonMix]

Maybe-- I don't know the history of the BNP well enough to say. However, if they were being excluded because it was believed they were as an institution fomenting racial discord, then I say that's a good enough reason.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LondonMix Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The point with the police is that if you hold

> > beliefs that present a heightened risk to the

> > public that you won't be able to impartially

> > enforce the law (which is the legal

> requirement),

> > then you can't be put in that position of power.

>

> > Those that don't believe all people are equal

> > cannot be entrusted to enforce the law

> equitably.

> > Its common sense, not political exclusion.

>

> But there are many parts to that rule that deal

> with people who have been convicted of race

> crimes. But 10-15 years ago, people joined the BNP

> for many reasons, not all of them racist (worries

> about immigration levels being one of them). And

> while there are/were, no question, people with

> racist attitudes in the BNP, reflecting that

> against each and every member of the BNP political

> party is guilt by association.

>

> Tarring them all with the same brush has got to be

> classed as political exclusion.

[miga]

People select who they interact with based on class, but I think they also do based on color. Who you interact with at work is one thing, but my impression is that once people are home, the friendship circle tends to be fairly homogenous both racially and with regards to class.

[Saffron]

London may be an exception, I'm not sure... however, in general implicit association testing has shown that unconscious bias is higher in urban areas, despite being more racially/culturally mixed. This is understood to demonstrate the way people cluster into familiar groups, and also shows that diversity is not the same as integration.

As far as the observation on US/UK culture differences, that is true to an extent, but it only fits where it touches. There are enormous subcultures and cultures within cultures etc in both these countries, that don't identify with either class(education) or job status as a marker of social standing.

[miga]

Totally agree with second statement Saffron, there are both large parts of society here which couldn't give a hoot about "old" class distinctions, preferring e.g. money as a status indicator, as well as parts of the U.S. society with very clear and entrenched ideas of class in the "old" sense.

[Dopamine1979]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A good example of context is the N word. Used by

> pretty much anyone it is unacceptable and

> insulting to say the least. But used by some black

> people to other certain black people, it has

> become part of their culture. Context innit.

Interesting piece on this topic by rapper Talib Kweli.

https://medium.com/cuepoint/nigga-please-93b5d29a615

[LondonMix]

That is really surprising you think so. That is not my experience of London at all. My statement about work was interracial couples (i.e. marriages) not work friendships. Given that something like 10% of children under 4 years old in the UK are mixed race, the idea that people tend to cluster just in the homogenous racial groups doesn't ring at all true to me. This feels particularly untrue in London, where anecdotally that mixed race / interracial couple population seems very, very high (like I said over 30% in my own office). I can honestly say I don't know anyone who doesn't have multiple friends outside their own race but maybe that's because I'm younger than other posters.

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People select who they interact with based on

> class, but I think they also do based on color.

> Who you interact with at work is one thing, but my

> impression is that once people are home, the

> friendship circle tends to be fairly homogenous

> both racially and with regards to class.

[Jeremy]

Dopamine1979 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > A good example of context is the N word.

>

> Interesting piece on this topic by rapper Talib Kweli.

> https://medium.com/cuepoint/nigga-please-93b5d29a615

 

[miga]

(In reply to LondonMix)

My experience of London, as with other big mixed cities I've lived in, is that ethnic and socioeconomic groups cluster. Perhaps a facile example, but witness the changing of the passenger demographic as the train progresses through the stations on e.g. Thameslink from Denmark Hill to Catford and beyond. Things are in flux in some neighbourhoods, of course, but a simple example of how people's private lives tend to be lived surrounded by people similar to them is where they choose to live.

As for the mixed race marriage thing - I agree, younger people (though I wouldn't describe myself as young) seem to be more open minded, and the stats back that up. But look at the caveats:

"Overall almost one in 10 people living in Britain is married to or living with someone from outside their own ethnic group, the analysis from the Office for National Statistics shows.

But the overall figure conceals wide variations. Only one in 25 white people have settled down with someone from outside their own racial background.

By contrast 85 per cent of people from mixed-race families have themselves set up home with someone from another group.

People from an African background are five and a half times as likely to be in a mixed relationship as white people, while those of Indian ancestry are three times as likely."

From this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10943807/Love-across-the-divide-interracial-relationships-growing-in-Britain.html

[LondonMix]

Its quite obvious why white people are the least likely to mix. It is because they have the least people to mix with. Even if everyone wanted marry outside of their race,statistically, it would be impossible for white people to mix more than 13% (the size of the minority population in the UK).

Take a look at these statistics as I think you might find them interesting: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21595908-rapid-rise-mixed-race-britain-changing-neighbourhoodsand-perplexing. Also, this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15164970

Anyhow, 40% of London is non-white. The statistics for the UK as a whole don't really represent London which is significantly more diverse than the country as a whole. The mixed race population of London is much higher than the country as a whole as well.

Being of different ages we probably just have very different experiences of London- mixed race people are found at the significantly higher concentrations amongst children than the population as a whole which suggests the younger generations are much more racially mixed than the general population. Like I said, of the 30 or so people I know in London well enough to know who their social circle generally includes, I can't think of a single person that doesn't have multiple friends that they socialise with outside of their race (I'm in my early 30s). Equally in my (relatively young and international office), the incidence of interracial relationships is very high. This again could be skewed because I work in finance which is very expat heavy and perhaps expats tend to be more internationally minded and racially open- who knows.

However, just walking around London, at a minimum I think about 20% of young children are mixed race, which proportionally would make sense given that most of the UK's minority population is concentrated in London rather than spread evenly across Britain. None of that suggests to me a city where most young people isolate themselves racially, though perhaps for those 40 plus, the reality is very different.

ETA: I'm really not sure about your train example about race. Heber Primary school in the centre of ED which for years now has only accepted students from a max of 500 meters away is only 52% white (only slightly less white than London as a whole). Look at the 2013 Ofted where its reported. Some of that might be skewed by private school attendance by the most affluent families who statically are more likely to be white but East Dulwich is still very racially mixed area as are most areas of London.

[????]

PC gone mad....i tell ya

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/05/cps-bahar-mustafa-killallwhitemen-tweet-goldsmiths#comments

[Blah Blah]

I think it typifies that problem with twiiter though ????. People behave in ways they never would face to face and write without any sense of responsibility. It also goes back to comments above about the kinds of people who seem to end up as diversity officers and think the use of shocking language is ok, and worse than that, actually forwards debate. It doesn't. It just polarises people against those claiming to forward the debate. The other thread on the ride out group reflects this too. That shocking behaviour will somehow forward their demand for a place to ride legally. It won't. There are numerous examles out there of this sort of thing.

Fortunately, enough people are able to seperate the misguided behaviour of some individuals from the core issue.