Let's talk about racism

[Avani]

The question is mentioned in the picture.

I don't know if they went on to define the term race, but does it really matter as it seems the general view on race is based on skin colour? Either way it means categorizing humans based on set of charasteristics.

Well in this case single metric can't make any definite conclusions because different questions about the same issue would perhaps lead to different answers. For example "who would you rather marry" etc. But I think these results could definitely be treated as indicative of racial tolerance. And thus it would be fair to draw some conclusions out of it.

Nah it's measuring tolerance on the criteria that means little in many other countries. E.g.

We have many ethnic groups, but most of them are here for centuries and you cannot differentiate them by skin colour. So by your definition of race it makes no sense that India would be that high on the list.

 

[Hawker]

Nah it's measuring tolerance on the criteria that means little in many other countries. E.g.

We have many ethnic groups but most of them are here for centuries and you cannot differentiate them by skin colour. So by your definition of race it makes no sense that India would be that high on the list.

A person can show racial intolerance towards an ethnicity even if that ethnicity isn't represented in that specific country. So I doubt the race situation in your country being the deciding factor in this survey.

And while I would suggest skin colour being the most general definition of race, I concur to many definitions of race. No just the one of skin colour. Isn't discriminaton and intolerance always bad? Whether the reason is skin colour or an etnic reason? Though to be honest I too was a bit surprised that India would be that high on the list.

 

[Avani]

A person can show racial intolerance towards an ethnicity even if that ethnicity isn't represented in that specific country. So I doubt the race situation in your country being the deciding factor in this survey.

And while I would suggest skin colour being the most general definition of race, I concur to many definitions of race. No just the one of skin colour. Isn't discriminaton and intolerance always bad? Whether the reason is skin colour or an etnic reason? Though to be honest I too was a bit surprised that India would be that high on the list.

In that survey countries which have worst record of persecuting people of different identity are shown as tolerant. As I said- I would like to know the exact question, details of sample population (region/number of people, background of those people) etc. Because if you are calling people racist just because they replied such a question where they would prefer to live in 'yes' or 'no', you are not getting the correct picture at all. It doesn't tell the ground realities and context. People in Countries like USA and rest of the Western world are conditioned by their education and media to keep these sorts of racial preferences private. But do you think in the current situation of refugee crisis in Europe and recent attacks will the result still be the same? Also:

You must be registered for see links

It counted 'YES' as 'NO'.

India has had a lot more refugees over course of history- thousands upon thousand and a very diverse kind of people. A lot of them came here to avoid religious persecution. And everyone found a place to fit in here. Once settled they are simply known as Indians.

 

[Edogawa]

That's not the only definition of racism.

My definition is from Oxford dictionary and is superior to non-academic definition you can bring up.

From wikipedia:

Not academic.

Discrimination, hate and intolerance can also be displayed whether or not believing in superiority.

Those words have their own definition, but they don't mean the same thing as racism.

But you said: "Firstly, if I don't want a neighbour of another religion or ethnicity, I'm not racist for that." not for certain, but it definitely is an indication of a racial intolerance.

It means xenophobia, not racist. Your article can't define terms.

Both physical attributes and cultural matters are used to define "race" in places all over the world. They may vary from a continent to continent, but the term race itself inherently is used in association with the biological consept. Though I may be wrong to assert that sking colour is the most general way of defining race worldwide, but I said this on the basis that there are different coloured people in almost every country of the world. Thus people say: "we have different races".

Yes, your article failed to address what is considered ''race'' in continents around the world.

Yes I read it. And how did that professor refute those numbers or the way that the data was used? You saying it's not an academic source, while it is true, is quite irrelevant here. As long as the data is used correctly no one cares.

The professor says the numbers are controversial. He doesn't agree with the article.

Do you know what a sample is? Do you know how surveys are done?

You should ask yourself that question because you think the survey asked 300 million Americans or 700 million Europeans.

 

[Hawker]

My definition is from Oxford dictionary and is superior to non-academic definition you can bring up.

F-ck that shit. Oxford dictionary doesn't hold the rights to any particular consept or word nor does it hold the power as the only group to define them. Racism is a very arbitrary consept as is race. Because race doesn't have any scientific basis, neither does racism. Which means racism is quite subjective and arbitrary and it most definitely isn't defined in just one way. lmfao

It means xenophobia, not racist. Your article can't define terms.

Yeah we clearly disagree of the terms here so whatever.

Yes, your article failed to address what is considered ''race'' in continents around the world.

Yes it did, but again race is an arbitrary consept but either way it's a categorazation based on physical attributes or cultural factors and discriminating based on either one of those things is bad. So even if the article didn't define what race in this context is, it doesn't really make that big of a difference.

The professor says the numbers are controversial. He doesn't agree with the article.

He didn't wholeheartedly agree with it, but he didn't dismiss it either. Big difference.

You should ask yourself that question because you think the survey asked 300 million Americans or 700 million Europeans.

That's your own strawman. Now where in the hell did I state such a thing? I hope you shit in your pants the next time you are sleeping.

In that survey countries which have worst record of persecuting people of different identity are shown as tolerant. As I said- I would like to know the exact question, details of sample population (region/number of people, background of those people) etc. Because if you are calling people racist just because they replied such a question where they would prefer to live in 'yes' or 'no', you are not getting the correct picture at all. It doesn't tell the ground realities and context. People in Countries like USA and rest of the Western world are conditioned by their education and media to keep these sorts of racial preferences private. But do you think in the current situation of refugee crisis in Europe and recent attacks will the result still be the same? Also:



India has had a lot more refugees over course of history- thousands upon thousand and a very diverse kind of people. A lot of them came here to avoid religious persecution. And everyone found a place to fit in here. Once settled they are simply known as Indians.

Well when you put it like that I have to agree. I'm not saying the study is the best way to look at racial attitudes, but it certainly gives us some indication about the differences, while it may not be complite accurate.

I will try to look up the actual details of the survey, because right now I don't have them. Obviously I would tell them if I knew them.

 

[shelke]

My definition is from Oxford dictionary and is superior to non-academic definition you can bring up.

You should ask yourself that question because you think the survey asked 300 million Americans or 700 million Europeans.

Whilst he is always off his rocker, your Oxford definition isn't exactly valid either. You should have chosen sociology or from any field of psychology that studies this area to get a better idea. Even then, you would have gotten a basic layout, but it would have been superior than the dictionary.

I agree with the rest.

That's your own strawman. Now where in the hell did I state such a thing? I hope you shit in your pants the next time you are sleeping.

Greatest comeback in the history of NB.

 

[Edogawa]

F-ck that shit. Oxford dictionary doesn't hold the rights to any particular consept or word nor does it hold the power as the only group to define them. Racism is a very arbitrary consept as is race. Because race doesn't have any scientific basis, neither does racism. Which means racism is quite subjective and arbitrary and it most definitely isn't defined in just one way. lmfao

What ever you say is irrelevant. Oxford dictionary is superior to your non-academic because Oxford is top 5 best universities in the world. Their information has more value than your irrelevant comments. This will be my last post on racism definition. Anything else you say is ignored because it is invalid.

Yeah we clearly disagree of the terms here so whatever.

Concession accepted.

Yes it did, but again race is an arbitrary consept but either way it's a categorazation based on physical attributes or cultural factors and discriminating based on either one of those things is bad. So even if the article didn't define what race in this context is, it doesn't really make that big of a difference.

But it does make a difference. I'll give you an example for your thick head to fit around it.

A question to a Westerner: Would you want a black man to be your neighbour?

A question to an Indian: Would you (Punjab) want a Bihari to be your neighbour?

A question to an Arab: Would you (Shammar) want a Qhatani to be your neighbour?

The question in the article is too simple. It doesn't address the difference, and that's why such results are low in the Western world and high elsewhere and everybody knows that's a complete lie. Racist ideologies and genocides are well known to be have been done by Westerns.

That's your own strawman. Now where in the hell did I state such a thing? I hope you shit in your pants the next time you are sleeping.

4.9% racism in the UK.

[video=youtube;5N5aV0U7Atg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N5aV0U7Atg[/video]

 

[Hawker]

What ever you say is irrelevant. Oxford dictionary is superior to your non-academic because Oxford is top 5 best universities in the world. Their information has more value than your irrelevant comments. This will be my last post on racism definition. Anything else you say is ignored because it is invalid.

"Has more value", that's the problem right there. Oxford is to you like the Quran to muslims. Alas I don't care how low you are going to sink with your arguments, that's your problem. So see it however you want.

But it does make a difference. I'll give you an example for your thick head to fit around it.

A question to a Westerner: Would you want a black man to be your neighbour?

A question to an Indian: Would you (Punjab) want a Bihari to be your neighbour?

A question to an Arab: Would you (Shammar) want a Qhatani to be your neighbour?

The question in the article is too simple. It doesn't address the difference, and that's why such results are low in the Western world and high elsewhere and everybody knows that's a complete lie. Racist ideologies and genocides are well known to be have been done by Westerns.

Ofcourse with this I agree and yes the question is too simple in this way, but still it doesn't change the fact whatever the respondants thinks is race the responses are still an indication of racial intolerance. Not wanting a black person or a Bihari as your neighbour is a sign of racial intolerance.

There has been no racist genocides after the WW2 in the west so quit focusing on the past as we are dealing with the attitudes of today. Nazishame is mainly the reason why Germans are so tolerant and accepting such huge numbers of immigrants today.

4.9% racism in the UK.

[video=youtube;5N5aV0U7Atg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N5aV0U7Atg[/video]

So you pulled a number out of your ass, didn't post any sources to it and posted a video about an anecdotal evidence where we see racism from the pov of a few people. I never said there wasn't racism in the UK, and while I condemn it, I realise it is also understandable in some way. Take for example 7/7 London Bombings, murder of Lee Rigby, Charlie Hedbo attack, muslims demanding sharia law, muslim ghettos and no-go zones and the increased crime statistics in 10 European countries. People are obviously afraid and this is the result. Do you think Japanese, Taiwanese, Indians or Mexicans get the same treatment in Europe?

 

[Edogawa]

You have great sense of humour, Hawker, and I mean this by your level of stupidity. You can't see your contradictions at all.

''So you pulled a number out of your ass, didn't post any sources to it and posted a video about an anecdotal evidence where we see racism from the pov of a few people.'' - Hawker.

''Take for example 7/7 London Bombings, murder of Lee Rigby, Charlie Hedbo attack, muslims demanding sharia law, muslim ghettos and no-go zones and the increased crime statistics in 10 European countries'' - Hawker.

Aren't these also done by few Muslims as opposed to their full population?

Do you just say random stuff and unknowingly realize they contradict your statements. By your examples, I can bring up my examples and justify them the way the British have in the video.

Europeans, for example, illegally immigrated to the Americas and Australia; cleansed the native Americans and Australians; their colonial rule that robbed the resources and enslaved millions of Indians and Africans. People are obviously afraid and these were the results.

Do you think Japanese, Taiwanese, Indians or Mexicans get the same treatment in Europe?

Because Japanese hardly exist in Europe, but they the same treatment in Eastern Asia in case you didn't know. Same with Mexicans in the US. Same with Indians in Pakistan and everywhere around the world.

 

[Hawker]

You have great sense of humour, Hawker, and I mean this by your level of stupidity. You can't see your contradictions at all.

''So you pulled a number out of your ass, didn't post any sources to it and posted a video about an anecdotal evidence where we see racism from the pov of a few people.'' - Hawker.

''Take for example 7/7 London Bombings, murder of Lee Rigby, Charlie Hedbo attack, muslims demanding sharia law, muslim ghettos and no-go zones and the increased crime statistics in 10 European countries'' - Hawker.

Aren't these also done by few Muslims as opposed to their full population?

Do you just say random stuff and unknowingly realize they contradict your statements. By your examples, I can bring up my examples and justify them the way the British have in the video.

Yes ofcourse you can bring up examples as to justify in a sense that why a dumb person is being intolerant. These have got nothing to do with the fact that racism is wrong, so this discussion is futile. And where exactly was the contradiction from my part? Did I pull out a number from my ass? My point was: what is your video going to accomplish as it focuses only on few people. It tells us nothing about the problem as a whole. My examples on the other hand are impacting thousands of people and they are quite relevant in the discussion with todays racism in Europe. Your video is anecdotal evidence. After that I posted facts. How two these two compare or show any contradictment?
Your video, while it's disturbing, is not as relevant as you may want it to be. It doesn't tell us anything about the big picture.

Europeans, for example, illegally immigrated to the Americas and Australia; cleansed the native Americans and Australians; their colonial rule that robbed the resources and enslaved millions of Indians and Africans. People are obviously afraid and these were the results.

Whathef..are you seriously bringing up ancient history to this? Obviously I condemn what those nutjobs did and I hope those would have never happened but how again is this relevant in todays world?

Because Japanese hardly exist in Europe, but they the same treatment in Eastern Asia in case you didn't know. Same with Mexicans in the US. Same with Indians in Pakistan and everywhere around the world.

The point is, no ethnicity in Europe other than maybe jews in France receive the same kind of treatment than muslims. There are 1,3 million American Japenese in US and the racism towards them is basically non-existent. Same in Europe. Never have I heard about any serious racial discrmination against Indian people in the West.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

Yeah because we have to believe every image and every piece information shared on the internet

 

[Hawker]

Yeah because we have to believe every image and every piece information shared on the internet

Did I or anyone else say that? That's your own strawman.

You not understanding how independet science works, how studies are done and what a respected institute means is not my problem.

Your problem is you only believe things that you agree with. So it's quite easy for ignorant child like you to swept aside every differing results as "bias", "lol it's the internet, not everything is true", "it's bs".

You literally have 0 contribution in most of the threads which you have commented in General Discussion and you never provide arguments or data of your own. So please keep your mouth shut and let the adults handle the talking.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

Did I or anyone else say that? That's your own strawman.

You not understanding how independet science works, how studies are done and what a respected institute means is not my problem.

Your problem is you only believe things that you agree with. So it's quite easy for ignorant child like you to swept aside every differing results as "bias", "lol it's the internet, not everything is true", "it's bs".

You literally have 0 contribution in most of the threads which you have commented in General Discussion and you never provide arguments or data of your own. So please keep your mouth shut and let the adults handle the talking.

hahahaha that's funny is that why most democratic and liberal politicians agree with me. Your thoughts and preferences don't conform with society hmm maybe you're the problem. The fact that you can't accept the simple reality that you might be wrong shows how big of an ego you have. good luck trying to make sense of your miserable life by posting invalid and misleading information.

 

[Hawker]

hahahaha that's funny is that why most democratic and liberal politicians agree with me. Your thoughts and preferences don't conform with society hmm maybe you're the problem. The fact that you can't accept the simple reality that you might be wrong shows how big of an ego you have is laughable. good luck trying to make sense of your miserable life by posting invalid and misleading information.

So firstly assert what is the issue or claim that a these politicians agree with you and then please provide evidence for that claim. But no you won't do it because are ignorant regressive leftists who doesn't contribute anything and just shouts and insults people like true "liberal" lmfao

Keep living in denial.

 

[Yubel]

If we cared about Syria as much as we do Paris and Bryssel, we wouldn't have an immigration crisis.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

So firstly assert what is the issue or claim that a these politicians agree with you and then please provide evidence for that claim. But no you won't do it because are ignorant regressive leftists who doesn't contribute anything and just shouts and insults people like true "liberal" lmfao

Keep living in denial.

you claim to be to be a liberal but most of your thoughts and beliefs seem to be very right? why is that? hmm lets see Republicans claim that climate change isn't real think it should be allowed for people on the no fly list to have guns think gays should be persecuted believe in the all live matter movement. Support the rich. Their campaigns are funded by Super-PACs. i think i can pretty much invalidate you at any time


Also i'd like to point out that you don't know what a regressive means bc if anything you're the regressive not me.

 

[Hawker]

you claim to be to be a liberal but most of your thoughts and opinions seem to be very right? why is that? hmm lets see Republicans claim that climate change isn't real think it should be allowed for people on the no fly list to have guns think gays should be persecuted believe in the all live matter movement. Support the rich. Their campaigns are funded by Super-PACs. i think i can pretty much invalidate you at any time

How does climate change or republicans or their campaigns have anything to do with this or the sources I've been using like: PEW Research center, World Value Survey, ICM, the official statistics of countries, wikipedia etc. Oh please go on. This just shows how illogical you are.

So please do "invalidate" me. Firstly though I suggest you pick up a claim that you are trying to debunk, as now you are just generally spouting nonsense which has got nothing to do with this topic.


Bolded: how is that a bad thing? All the lives don't matter? lmfao

Edit: I'm beginning to think that you actually are a child, maybe 12-13 year old. Therefore I'm afraid that "discussing" this , whatever it is, with you will result in some health problems for you.

 

[CrimsonReaper]

How does climate change or republicans or their campaigns have anything to do with this or the sources I've been using like: PEW Research center, World Value Survey, ICM, the official statistics of countries, wikipedia etc. Oh please go on. This just shows how illogical you are.

So please do "invalidate" me. Firstly though I suggest you pick up a claim that you are trying to debunk, as now you are just generally spouting nonsense which has got nothing to do with this topic.


Bolded: how is that a bad thing? All the lives don't matter? lmfao

Edit: I'm beginning to think that you actually are a child, maybe 12-13 year old. Therefore I'm afraid that "discussing" this , whatever it is, with you will result in some health problems for you.

You must be registered for see links

i'm not saying this list must be true but there are plentiful of them on the internet you claiming that your link must be the right one is frankly very childish which is very ironic considering you just called me a 13 year old.

The world needs to show that they stand by and support minorities and as your thread primarily suggests of the whole world is suffering from. And if we want to stop it we have to work and strive towards more equality through out races and people of color.

Also how ****ing funny is it that you literally took the first image that is on google and slapped it on this thread.

 

[Hawker]

You must be registered for see links

i'm not saying this list must be true but there are plentiful of them on the internet you claiming that you're link must be the right one is frankly very childish which is very ironic considering you just called me a 13 year old.

The world needs to show that they stand by and support minorities and as your thread primarily suggests of the whole world is suffering from. And if we want to stop it we have to work and strive towards more equality through out races and people of color.

Also how ****ing funny is it that you literally took the first image that is on google and slapped it on this thread.

How does your link prove anything? No facts just general impressions. No really tell me where is that article based on? Where are the sources?

The difference between that one and the one I linked that mine is based on a study by respected institution.

Bolded: Yes, ofcourse. Have I or anyone on this thread said otherwise? That doesn't mean that racism doesn't exist. It exists all around the world. Only a very childish person would think otherise.

Underlined: what? I got that picture from an article which is linked in the op. Why are you assuming I used google and why are you using that as an argument if I provided valid souce for my picture? Once again you show how irrational you are.

 

[Avani]

But it does make a difference. I'll give you an example for your thick head to fit around it.

A question to a Westerner: Would you want a black man to be your neighbour?

A question to an Indian: Would you (Punjab) want a Bihari to be your neighbour?

A question to an Arab: Would you (Shammar) want a Qhatani to be your neighbour?

Was that the question asked? Thank you in that case. Has anyone noticed year of the sampling from India?