Laurence Fox
- Thread starter Amplus
- Start date
Prep your waffle-irons, it’s time for brunch 
We’re now getting down into the depths as to whether it can ever be possible to create something for the express benefit of a discrete group without being recklessly exclusive to others. On the balance, I think it can, but only if it relates to an issue that is specifically faced by the specific group in question.
For example, I imagine a safe space group of women who had been raped by men would be, I think, an understandable exclusionary group.
But “aha!”, you say, what about men who have been raped by men?! Well, yes, men get raped by men. I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the benefits of the discrete group.
People can be racist against Asians. Does that negate any merits in a theoretical black only safe space? On balance I don’t think it does.
Really, I’m sure we’d all agree that one group for all sorts of racism would generally be appropriate, but then it would lack the specifity and merits of only dealing with the narrow group. I also don’t think the creation of a narrow group necessarily indicates discrimination against a wider group. Going back to the rape example, is it inherently wrong to have a safe space for woman only? I don’t think it is, as women are different. Black people are different. Men are different. All groups are different. There are strengths and weaknesses in making these divisions. But I do not think the mere act of making such divisions is inherently harmful.
I think that last sentence/statement is something we can probably all agree on, if we step back. There is far too much name calling going on from ‘all sides’ relating to the notion of maliciously creating either divisions or inclusive groups, when in reality there is no maliciousness nor, also in reality, reckless disregard.
With that in mind, I think there is more progress to be gained from de-escalating the infernal arms race of “NO U!” and finger pointing, from all directions.
Hopefully there is some common ground we can all find there in my waffle, @Dis86 included
I do see what you are getting at: a safe space for black people but none for anyone else. I think your assumptions are reasonable. It nevertheless is in relation to a specific issue of awareness deliberately revolving around a specific race.
We’re now getting down into the depths as to whether it can ever be possible to create something for the express benefit of a discrete group without being recklessly exclusive to others. On the balance, I think it can, but only if it relates to an issue that is specifically faced by the specific group in question.
For example, I imagine a safe space group of women who had been raped by men would be, I think, an understandable exclusionary group.
But “aha!”, you say, what about men who have been raped by men?! Well, yes, men get raped by men. I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the benefits of the discrete group.
People can be racist against Asians. Does that negate any merits in a theoretical black only safe space? On balance I don’t think it does.
Really, I’m sure we’d all agree that one group for all sorts of racism would generally be appropriate, but then it would lack the specifity and merits of only dealing with the narrow group. I also don’t think the creation of a narrow group necessarily indicates discrimination against a wider group. Going back to the rape example, is it inherently wrong to have a safe space for woman only? I don’t think it is, as women are different. Black people are different. Men are different. All groups are different. There are strengths and weaknesses in making these divisions. But I do not think the mere act of making such divisions is inherently harmful.
I think that last sentence/statement is something we can probably all agree on, if we step back. There is far too much name calling going on from ‘all sides’ relating to the notion of maliciously creating either divisions or inclusive groups, when in reality there is no maliciousness nor, also in reality, reckless disregard.
With that in mind, I think there is more progress to be gained from de-escalating the infernal arms race of “NO U!” and finger pointing, from all directions.
Hopefully there is some common ground we can all find there in my waffle, @Dis86 included
Caporegime
Wait...I'm confused. People are different? We keep getting told everyone is the same.
I understand your point but the analogy does not quite work as rape victims are not abused with the intention of segregation, where as that is an inherent nature of racism. Creating a segregated group to get away from racial abuse is ridiculous and detrimental to integration and equality.
I agree it's not the biggest of deals - and it was simply misrepresentation of an online group where black people could talk about BLM - but I am showing possible reason for the views he expressed. As I've mentioned he has used this controversy as a platform, but not unjustly, and not the way you think.
Re: the underlined text, yes, that would be ridiculous... if that was the intended purpose of the group. Is it not the case, as I was interring with my ‘rape example’, that it is effectively a support group for members of a discrete class that is bolstered in effectiveness by being a narrow group? That is what I was getting at, so in that regard I don’t think your first sentence of your first paragraph applies.
I think we have probably exhausted our respective positions, but with all that said I do think it’s rather extreme to say that Sainsbury’s have promoted racism / segregation on the basis of what they put on their website, for the reasons I mentioned. I DO think there is definitely a wider discussion to be had in respect of issues of segregation and exclusion, but I think targeting Sainsbury’s for this reason is ‘the wrong target’ and weakens Fox’s position.
I don’t despise him though. See post #18 of the thread
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
That is certainly one word for it
Yes I missed your intended point, sorry. Simplified to that there is no argument, but context brings complexity.
Yes agreed, but it wasn't really about Sainsburys.
I don't really care for him, but I do think he's intelligent and outspoken enough to perform better than our current crop when it comes to improving the country.I don’t despise him though. See post #18 of the thread
I know NVP has been a victim of this in the past and seems to be called it frequently, he's mentioned it before in a few threads. However, i don't why he seems to be a target as i have a pretty big mix of Muslim and Hindu friends and none of them have said they haven't been called that in many many years. I personally haven't heard anyone use it since the early 90's
The N-word is a different kettle of fish. It's everywhere and 99% is from black people calling each other that.
Haha and I'm Sikh
I can only assume I'm around more scum than your friends on a more frequent level, which is likely.Last one I had was the obvious alcoholic lady, who lives opposite, shouting "teri ma di pudi" at me (which actually means "your mums fanny", she was forgetting some insult on the end) this was after my correction to her that I was Punjabi when she said something about me and Pakistan. This was during Lockdown. It's not gone, not by a long shot.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,129
Say what
Man of Honour
Please report them, they'll be dealt with if they are more than borderline.
Questionable?! Oh no! As if some people's views are above question
What is it about modern left wing belief systems and their absolute lack of tolerance for any views that don't align with there own? I'm disappointed you didn't go the full hog and call me problematic. I'll keep the way you view things in mind the next time I have the opportunity to defend your particular brand of drunken nonsense.
Caporegime
I said 'pretty borderline' not 'more than borderline'.
No one's views are above question so I agree with you. That was my pointQuestionable?! Oh no! As if some people's views are above question
What is it about modern left wing belief systems and their absolute lack of tolerance for any views that don't align with there own? I'm disappointed you didn't go the full hog and call me problematic. I'll keep the way you view things in mind the next time I have the opportunity to defend your particular brand of drunken nonsense.
I'm not particularly left wing, don't have an absolute lack of tolerance for (m)any views and don't use the word 'problematic'. Are you reaching for something that's not there because I don't think I'm the target you think 'they' are.
Fair point on the drunken nonsense though
Soldato
Why is it ok for him to call people racists all around the forum?
Man of Honour
I know, that's what I was highlighting. It's similar to the story about aircraft maintenance where a pilot puts in his post flight report that the "nose wheel almost needs replacing" and the engineers carry out their maintenance, writing "nose wheel almost replaced".
Ah, gotcha. You chose to specifically describe my views as questionable because everyone's views are questionable, not because they don't align with yours. That makes perfect sense. Now I think about it I do recall seeing you go out of your way to describe every view posted as questionable, silly me.No one's views are above question so I agree with you. That was my point
Caporegime
I said you had other questionable views not because they don't align with mine (although they increasingly often have not but so what, that's not my point) but because you post them from a position of perceived authority. Let me explain before you think I'm having a pop at you because I'm not - it's a reflection, not a jab. Most admins are careful not to lean too heavily one way or the other on some of the more contentious stuff that gets posted on the shop's forums, whether by design or happenstance I don't know, but you are an exception to that and have been notably vocal on certain issues of a similar theme and in agreement with a narrow band of posters.
Perhaps I'm explaining it badly or shouldn't have mentioned the Don angle or personalised it. It wasn't my intention to personalise it about you Zefan, specifically, more about the Don angle and any additional weight that may be perceived as bringing to what was becoming borderline attacks on Tony in my view where we have already agreed that all views - including the one I've just given 5 seconds ago - are open to question.
Perhaps I'm explaining it badly or shouldn't have mentioned the Don angle or personalised it. It wasn't my intention to personalise it about you Zefan, specifically, more about the Don angle and any additional weight that may be perceived as bringing to what was becoming borderline attacks on Tony in my view where we have already agreed that all views - including the one I've just given 5 seconds ago - are open to question.
Man of Honour
Par for the course for an ideology of authoritarianism and irrational prejudices.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,699
views on him depends on your what? upbringing, social circle, sexuality or what?
Associate
he makes me wonder why the monster raving looney party arent more sensible
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,699
I've noticed the certain umbrage taken over the most normal question even talking about today's tv and movies as if it's a personal attack on their values? it's all very strange and weird these days