Philosophy Now Forum

Brit Dems wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Brit Dems wrote: I am a victim of Racism. ...

In what sense? If you mean the act of classifying races is racist then I think I agree but by and large you are just work-shy and think the other races should pay for your existence, that you are intelligent enough to play the system but stupid enough to be sectioned shows that you are also mental. Still, it means you'll now be able to sponge of rest of us and live your delusional fantasy so maybe not so insane. Personally it sounds like a lot of effort for HB and JSA when you could use your brains to earn much more but then the mental are not known for their rationality.
p.s.
There is no requirement for anyone to identify themselves by the classifications.

If there is Racism there must be victims.

Is it a mental problem that I have or is there a cultural issue highlighted in my story?

Yes, you have a mental problem. Where there is stupidity there is a victim at the heart of it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Brit Dems wrote:

If there is Racism there must be victims.

Is it a mental problem that I have or is there a cultural issue highlighted in my story?

Yes, you have a mental problem. Where there is stupidity there is a victim at the heart of it.

Can you identify the "stupidity" you refer to for the other readers?

What exactly was stupid?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

David Handeye wrote: I have understood what you mean. BTW, black people born in Italy ARE Italian. But guess they're neither european.

Would you care to explain it then, and also what he wants?

What he wants? well, you're asking me too much

Actually Brit Dems is saying that he's a victim of racism.
If you, any public officer you could be, after questioned, answer to the questioner to be "white", then automatically you are making the questioner a victim of racism.
Only if you classify yourself as "human", and not as white or black or yellow, you are not a racist. I think Brit Dems is saying that racism has becoming institutional classifying method. If so, that's not a good news.

David Handeye wrote:Actually Brit Dems is saying that he's a victim of racism.
If you, any public officer you could be, after questioned, answer to the questioner to be "white", then automatically you are making the questioner a victim of racism.
Only if you classify yourself as "human", and not as white or black or yellow, you are not a racist. I think Brit Dems is saying that racism has becoming institutional classifying method. If so, that's not a good news.

If you feel you are a victim of racism, the only response is to not be racist yourself.

For myself, I am 100% against all forms of racism; positive and negative. It is simply wrong to judge a person's character on their skin colour. In the same way we do not judge a person on the colour of their eyes, so we ought not to judge on the colour of their skin.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Actually Brit Dems is saying that he's a victim of racism.
If you, any public officer you could be, after questioned, answer to the questioner to be "white", then automatically you are making the questioner a victim of racism.
Only if you classify yourself as "human", and not as white or black or yellow, you are not a racist. I think Brit Dems is saying that racism has becoming institutional classifying method. If so, that's not a good news.

If you feel you are a victim of racism, the only response is to not be racist yourself.

For myself, I am 100% against all forms of racism; positive and negative. It is simply wrong to judge a person's character on their skin colour. In the same way we do not judge a person on the colour of their eyes, so we ought not to judge on the colour of their skin.

How can one be a victim of Racism and a Racist at the same time?

What do you mean by "positive and negative" Racism?

Are you saying the British Government is wrong to record Race and Ethnicity?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Actually Brit Dems is saying that he's a victim of racism.
If you, any public officer you could be, after questioned, answer to the questioner to be "white", then automatically you are making the questioner a victim of racism.
Only if you classify yourself as "human", and not as white or black or yellow, you are not a racist. I think Brit Dems is saying that racism has becoming institutional classifying method. If so, that's not a good news.

If you feel you are a victim of racism, the only response is to not be racist yourself.

For myself, I am 100% against all forms of racism; positive and negative. It is simply wrong to judge a person's character on their skin colour. In the same way we do not judge a person on the colour of their eyes, so we ought not to judge on the colour of their skin.

I agree with you Hobbes, yes. Very fair, as you say.

David Handeye wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
. . . . .
For myself, I am 100% against all forms of racism; positive and negative. It is simply wrong to judge a person's character on their skin colour. In the same way we do not judge a person on the colour of their eyes, so we ought not to judge on the colour of their skin.

I agree with you Hobbes, yes. Very fair, as you say.

Are you too saying the British Government is wrong to record Race and Ethnicity?

Yes, I think British Government is wrong.
Also Nazi's dictatorship began with such schedules.

Brit Dems wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Actually Brit Dems is saying that he's a victim of racism.
If you, any public officer you could be, after questioned, answer to the questioner to be "white", then automatically you are making the questioner a victim of racism.
Only if you classify yourself as "human", and not as white or black or yellow, you are not a racist. I think Brit Dems is saying that racism has becoming institutional classifying method. If so, that's not a good news.

If you feel you are a victim of racism, the only response is to not be racist yourself.

For myself, I am 100% against all forms of racism; positive and negative. It is simply wrong to judge a person's character on their skin colour. In the same way we do not judge a person on the colour of their eyes, so we ought not to judge on the colour of their skin.

How can one be a victim of Racism and a Racist at the same time?

What do you mean by "positive and negative" Racism?

Are you saying the British Government is wrong to record Race and Ethnicity?

Easy. When you define yourself by a race then you are a racist. When you provide favours to others or restrict access and privileges to others you are a racist. It ought not take too much imagination to see how you can disadvantage, say, a white person who identifies himself by his colour. Racism knows no colour bar. Racists can be found in all "races".

When you provide one race with an advantage you are disadvantaging another race.
Positive racism is an organisation like the NAACP, which provides grants to education for black people in the USA, or the Jewish Writers Guild of America. Whites of similar circumstances to blacks achieving those awards, cannot apply for those grants and are thus the victim of a racist policy.
Negative racism is when you seek to specifically disadvantage a person because of their race. In South Africa blacks where prevented from using certain facilities, and attending certain schools. This in turn, gave advantage to whites.

I think that recording the "race" of a person is a racist policy ipso facto.. Whilst it might have intentions to study the impact of the idea of race, and to understand how different races are treated, it bolsters the thought that it is okay to define people by their race, and in doing so establishes "race" as a valid category. This is a vicious circle, that is hard to break.

For there to be racial equality (and by that I mean even unprejudiced access to rights and privileges), a person's "Race" whatever the fuck that is, should not be a factor.

Whenever I answer one of those idiotic forms I always put "OTHER", and "homo sapiens". If there is no space for it, I add it to the page.

David Handeye wrote:Yes, I think British Government is wrong.
Also Nazi's dictatorship began with such schedules.

OK.

The European Union and the United Nations have not been able to persuade the British Government to change their ways.

RACISM = WHITE SUPREMACY

RACIALISM = RACIAL EQUALITY


Putting "other" in the Race and Ethnicity forms is very popular but it does nothing to address the issue.

RACIALISM VS RACISM

This is a fresh look at the problem.

Brit Dems wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Yes, I think British Government is wrong.
Also Nazi's dictatorship began with such schedules.

OK.

The European Union and the United Nations have not been able to persuade the British Government to change their ways.

Where the hell do you get ideas like this?
Please point out there the UN and the EU have tried.

Second thoughts, you are the guy who thinks British means "white" when your own links say otherwise.

Brit Dems wrote: RACISM = WHITE SUPREMACY

RACIALISM = RACIAL EQUALITY

Putting "other" in the Race and Ethnicity forms is very popular but it does nothing to address the issue.

RACIALISM VS RACISM

This is a fresh look at the problem.

What "problem" is that? Second thoughts - I know what the problem is..

You are not only a sad and confused person, but I think your basic grasp of language is limited.

If you were an example of "white supremacy" it's no wonder Hitler failed so miserably.

Brit Dems wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Yes, I think British Government is wrong.
Also Nazi's dictatorship began with such schedules.

OK.

The European Union and the United Nations have not been able to persuade the British Government to change their ways.

Of course, because EU and UN have no decisional power on their members' national policy. On the other hand EU and UN have no decisional power on their members' international policy.
EU and UN are just a failure. Just like the Nations Society and the Allies diplomacy between the two World Wars.
My opinion is that Hegel was right, sooner or later war is inevitable.