The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...

Sham Squire · 08-05-2017 05:38PM

Glenster wrote: »

The idea of race is 100% cultural.

So what? That doesn't help those being racially discriminated against.

Glenster · 08-05-2017 05:43PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

So what? That doesn't help those being racially discriminated against.

THATS WHAT IM SAYING!

YOU CAN BE RACIST AGAINST ANYONE YOU IDENTIFY AS DIFFERENT CULTURALLY!

Sham Squire · 08-05-2017 05:46PM

Glenster wrote: »

THATS WHAT IM SAYING!

YOU CAN BE RACIST AGAINST ANYONE YOU IDENTIFY AS DIFFERENT CULTURALLY!

NO, THAT'S CALLED XENOPHOBIA NO MATTER IF YOU USE CAPITALS OR NOT.

Wibbs · 08-05-2017 05:47PM

Glenster wrote: »

The idea of race is 100% cultural.

That's a nonsense. The idea of ethnicity is far more cultural. However while the idea of "race" itself has issues, it can hardly be denied that there exists a diverse range of populations within modern humans and that range has physical characteristics that can be roughly drawn into what most think of as "races". There's nothing "cultural" about melanin levels as an example. That's in the phenotypes, similar can be seen within such groups on the genetic level. Genetically those populations also show commonalities within the populations. Obviously there are overlaps between populations and it can get quite fuzzy and has become fuzzier in various locations like the New World, where as people will, different populations got jiggy with each other. If we were any other species we would describe humans as one species alright, but with a few sub divisions within them.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 08-05-2017 05:57PM

My name is URL wrote: »

You seem desperate to find something to be offended by OP

Nope, I'm not even remotely offended. I just love to see a bully's plan backfire in their face. And that's exactly what this journalist was trying to do, bully someone by labelling them in a patronising manner.

robindch wrote: »

A lot of the alt-right spend an inordinate amount of time reading what they refer to as the "mainstream media" in order to find things which they can affect offence at in order to virtue-signal to their own virtual friends.

Such people would be better off finding some real friends :rolleyes:

So I'm now 'alt-right' for calling out a crap journalist, who very clearly fcuked up and used colonial language? I'm just saying they ought to practise what they preach. They're the ones insisting in this hyper-fanatical culture of political correctness, so now they can fall on their own sword.

wes wrote: »

There either doing that or threatening to murder girl scouts:

Girl Scout threatened after confronting neo-Nazi protesters in striking photo

Why am I being associated with the knuckledraggers who threatened a girl scout? (And they are knuckledraggers, just to be clear.)
It's idiotic posts like this, where anyone who dares to dissent against the narrative is immediately labelled 'far-right', that has driven a huge amount of people to vote for Trump, Le Pen, Geert Wilders etc. Hasn't that worked out well for you.

Nice job.

neverever1 · 08-05-2017 06:04PM

It's not really offensive but who wants to be labelled as British? Especially with their morals and history.

Of course many around here would be spineless about this even. 'Oh sorry we're not British, you can call us what you like'. 'Sorry for gaining part independence, you didn't kill enough of us really'. Pathetic creatures.

08-05-2017 06:14PM

Guardian is pretty good for sport imo, they often have interesting and well written football articles

neverever1 · 08-05-2017 06:18PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Guardian is pretty good for sport imo, they often have interesting and well written football articles

I've never read the guardian. Who do they have writing their football articles? I like Dara O'Se's stuff and even Brolly sometimes.

08-05-2017 06:22PM

neverever1 wrote: »

I've never read the guardian. Who do they have writing their football articles? I like Dara O'Se's stuff and even Brolly sometimes.

Whoops, that should be 'soccer' articles

B_Wayne · 08-05-2017 06:23PM

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Nope, I'm not even remotely offended. I just love to see a bully's plan backfire in their face. And that's exactly what this journalist was trying to do, bully someone by labelling them in a patronising manner.

So I'm now 'alt-right' for calling out a crap journalist, who very clearly fcuked up and used colonial language? I'm just saying they ought to practise what they preach. They're the ones insisting in this hyper-fanatical culture of political correctness, so now they can fall on their own sword.

Why am I being associated with the knuckledraggers who threatened a girl scout? (And they are knuckledraggers, just to be clear.)
It's idiotic posts like this, where anyone who dares to dissent against the narrative is immediately labelled 'far-right', that has driven a huge amount of people to vote for Trump, Le Pen, Geert Wilders etc. Hasn't that worked out well for you.

Nice job.

Okay, so you cite people voting for fascists or wannabe fascists after just denying being alt right. Would you agree Wilders and LaPen are racist fascists? Would you agree that Trump engages in plenty of appeals to racism?

neverever1 · 08-05-2017 06:24PM

riffmongous wrote: »

Whoops, that should be 'soccer' articles

fxotoole · 08-05-2017 06:27PM

So The Guardian called Dara and Ed British. Big Whoop.

They've worked there and based themselves there for many years, to the extent that The Guardian, at least, now consider them British, rather than Irish.

Talk about a storm in a f**king teacup, OP

Ol' Donie · 08-05-2017 06:31PM

fxotoole wrote: »

So The Guardian called Dara and Ed British. Big Whoop.

They've worked there and based themselves there for many years, to the extent that The Guardian, at least, now consider them British, rather than Irish.

Talk about a storm in a f**king teacup, OP

It's not even that bad, the point they were making was simply that the format is tired.

The hatred for white people sends shivers down your spine.

Harry Palmr · 08-05-2017 06:31PM

One of the more threads on After Hours recently!

I see the article has been amended (unacknowledged)

Neither does the increasingly dull and unedifying formula of sending white men to far-flung places in search of “strange and quirky” aspects of other cultures. The latest are Irish comedians Dara O'Briain and Ed Byrne

Glenster · 08-05-2017 06:35PM

Wibbs wrote: »

That's a nonsense. The idea of ethnicity is far more cultural. However while the idea of "race" itself has issues, it can hardly be denied that there exists a diverse range of populations within modern humans and that range has physical characteristics that can be roughly drawn into what most think of as "races". There's nothing "cultural" about melanin levels as an example. That's in the phenotypes, similar can be seen within such groups on the genetic level. Genetically those populations also show commonalities within the populations. Obviously there are overlaps between populations and it can get quite fuzzy and has become fuzzier in various locations like the New World, where as people will, different populations got jiggy with each other. If we were any other species we would describe humans as one species alright, but with a few sub divisions within them.

"Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

-Craig Venter of the National Institute of Health (Dude who mapped the human genome)

Read any social science, anthropological, serious historical, or academic cultural book written in the last 30 years. You wont find reference to genetic race in it, the academic consensus now is that a race is a self identified group in the same way that ethnicity is (albeit with a stronger focus on culture than ancestry).

Race is a means of separating 'us' from 'them'.

steddyeddy · 08-05-2017 06:39PM

HigginsJ wrote: »

How long has Dara worked and lived in the UK?

Tell that to the Ulster Scots that lived in Ireland for centuries.

Annasopra · 08-05-2017 06:53PM

My name is URL wrote: »

You seem desperate to find something to be offended by OP

Poor snowflake

Annasopra · 08-05-2017 06:55PM

donegal. wrote: »

am i missing something, wheres the spectacular backfire?

No. You're really missing nothing.

Peregrine · 08-05-2017 07:03PM

Posts by re-reg and quotes deleted.

Sham Squire · 08-05-2017 07:05PM

Why have those posts and their quoted posts been deleted? Is the user banned?

arayess · 08-05-2017 07:07PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Okay, so you cite people voting for fascists or wannabe fascists after just denying being alt right. Would you agree Wilders and LaPen are racist fascists?

Would you agree that Trump engages in plenty of appeals to racism?

no i wouldn't on wilders and lePen

your trump question makes me laugh.

It was a 2 horse race so of course both side picked up undesirables.
I guarantee you had somebody like David Duke ran the racist element would have flocked to his side and not trump. In a polarised race it's pick the one closest to you not necessary who holds your views.

I kinda like Bernie Saunders but while people are forever trying to pin the KKK on trump nobody makes Bernie renounce lunatics like Antifa who support him.
why is that?

Sham Squire · 08-05-2017 07:08PM

Glenster wrote: »

"Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

-Craig Venter of the National Institute of Health (Dude who mapped the human genome)

Read any social science, anthropological, serious historical, or academic cultural book written in the last 30 years. You wont find reference to genetic race in it, the academic consensus now is that a race is a self identified group in the same way that ethnicity is (albeit with a stronger focus on culture than ancestry).

Race is a means of separating 'us' from 'them'.

Let's be clear. You're muddying the waters. If you're interested in an academic discussion about race then start a thread. If you're point in this thread is that you CAN be racist to white people then you are mistaken and need to educate yourself further on the subject.

The_Valeyard · 08-05-2017 07:19PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You can't be racist to white people. There's whole libraries full of books on this subject. Read some.

Pure and utter BS.

Seen plenty of racism towards white people on my travels in parts of Africa.

08-05-2017 07:24PM

fxotoole wrote: »

So The Guardian called Dara and Ed British. Big Whoop.

They've worked there and based themselves there for many years, to the extent that The Guardian, at least, now consider them British, rather than Irish.

Talk about a storm in a f**king teacup, OP

Eh no, in the next sentence they were referred to as Irish, which reads as if irish is a subset of British according to the author

Icemancometh · 08-05-2017 07:26PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Pure and utter BS.

Seen plenty of racism towards white people on my travels in parts of Africa.

Racism equals prejudice and power apparently. This young lad was a victim of prejudice, not racism. Judge got it wrong too.

Sham Squire · 08-05-2017 07:34PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Pure and utter BS.

Seen plenty of racism towards white people on my travels in parts of Africa.

Wrong

Wibbs · 08-05-2017 07:46PM

Glenster wrote: »

"Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."

-Craig Venter of the National Institute of Health (Dude who mapped the human genome)

And frankly he's talking nonsense. More likely he wants to fit the science to the belief system that followed on the "we're all Africans you know" science of the late 1980s. Bolstered by the genetic mesh mash that one might find in his home country of America, where such lines are or can be vague. Outside of that it is not scientific at all. And there are some "bright lines" as he terms them. EG if you find Neandertal and/or Denisovan gene sequences the person being tested is not of direct African ancestry. If a person has both Denisovan and Neandertal genes they're almost certainly Asian. If they've longer chunks of the former you can tie them geographically to certain areas of East Asia. By genetic testing one can discern with quite the accuracy what population, even geographical area an individual hails from(except in areas like I referenced before where it can get nebulous, because of intermarriage etc). Now there is no "gene for Irish" for example, but there are suites of genes that are found within populations that tie someone to those populations. Eye, hair, skin colours but one lot. Ask any pathologist or anatomist and they can tell at a glance whether a skull is Asian, European, African. My skull is different to an African Pygmy chap as we both are to a Native Australian. Our genetic makeup is different too. Is that "cultural"? It is in my eye. I'd love to hear an explanation of how culture can influence both a phenotype and a genotype.

Read any social science, anthropological, serious historical, or academic cultural book written in the last 30 years. You wont find reference to genetic race in it, the academic consensus now is that a race is a self identified group in the same way that ethnicity is (albeit with a stronger focus on culture than ancestry).

Which again is a nonsense. Now I can understand why this idea is promoted. For bloody good reasons as historically the notion of "race" was peddled to all sorts of nasty and tragic ends, but the pendulum has swung the other direction to the point of silliness IMHO and I'd give two figs about "academic consensus"(they are regularly wrong) when it's demonstrably unscientific and more about pet theories or politics.

jackboy · 08-05-2017 07:46PM

Sham Squire wrote: »

You can't be racist to white people. There's whole libraries full of books on this subject. Read some.

There's libraries full of books on creationism. Doesn't make it true. Cop on. It's not complicated.

Sham Squire · 08-05-2017 07:50PM

jackboy wrote: »

It's not complicated.

You're right about that but wrong about everything else. I'm sorry you haven't bothered to educate yourself so I'm gonna be very generous despite your ignorance and point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you. Take the blindfold off, or don't.

"in order for racism to exist, it must be backed by systemic oppression. That means that in order for something to be racist against a white person, it would have to be said somewhere they represent an abused and unpopular minority."

You're welcome

Wibbs · 08-05-2017 07:52PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Pure and utter BS.

Of course it's utter BS TV. One can be racist towards any group. indeed Europeans have been racist against other Europeans they saw as a different "race". QV the English ruling caste towards the Irish. I'd love to see how the "you can't be racist towards Whites" peddlers square that particular circle. I mean if "race" doesn't exist and it's "culture" then there existed a culture of racism by one population towards another. Though it seems it's only "racism" if pale people do it to dark. TBH I find that beyond condescending to people who aren't white. They're all somehow perpetually innocent victims of the White Man. They can't even muster their own prejudices to the same elevated degree of White. The poor dears. :rolleyes:

The Guardian's 'we hate white people' agenda backfires spectacularly today...

Comments