A litmus test

[EternalOptimist]

Following the thread about on-shoring, I think we need a litmus test for racist commentary.
i.e.
possibly a sort of substitution clause, insert scouser in place of Indian to see if it still sounds racist.
possibly a caveat, like the moslems always use pbuh (peace be upon him) when they mention Allah. we could have ianar(I am not a racist)

e.g. My experience of working with 4 major Scouse(ianar) systems integrators is that while they are cheaper, and whilst they are technically very good and polite -they simply have no(ianar) capacity for management(ianar),
worse of all - their food always seems to stink out the entire floor when they use the microwave(ianar)


what litmus test would YOU use to detect the presence of these foul attitudes(ianapcd)?

[jmo21]

don't get me started on the Scousers!!!!

[Grinder]

Any negative comment about any group without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) is not acceptable in my view.

So you can say "I knew someone who was fat and he smelled", but you cannot say that fat people smell, even if every fat person you ever met smelled, because you have not met (or smelled) all fat people.

[Drewster]

Any negative comment about any group without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) is not acceptable in my view.

So you can say "I knew someone who was fat and he smelled", but you cannot say that fat people smell, even if every fat person you ever met smelled, because you have not met (or smelled) all fat people.

Its got a beak - like a Duck
It waddles - like a Duck
It has webbed feet - like a Duck
Its got feathers - Like a Duck
It quacks - like a Duck
It swims - Like a Duck
Lets be clear here - It is NOT a Turkey....
I have not seen all the Ducks in the world but I am able to identify with a fair degree of certainty that - ITS A DUCK.....

True it MIGHT be a Goose
It might be a Swan
But I am going to stick my neck out - IT IS A DUCK

But I actually agree with Grinder - If you haven't got enough data you souldn't make to many assumptions....

[Grinder]

[lightng]

don't get me started on the Scousers!!!!

Man u supporter by any chance? I 4-1 am not.

[BrollyBonce]

insert scouser in place of Indian to see if it still sounds racist.

Insert "thieving ponce" in place of "low paid, hard worker who will learn a foreign language and go half way round the world for work".

Yep, I can see the Indians being seriously offended. And I would agree with them.

[expat]

Any negative comment about any group without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) is not acceptable in my view.

So you can say "I knew someone who was fat and he smelled", but you cannot say that fat people smell, even if every fat person you ever met smelled, because you have not met (or smelled) all fat people.

The place in between those two extremes is where the questions and problems arise.

Is it acceptable to generalise? I say yes, some valid things can only be said by generalisation. It is when the generalisation is applied to individuals, in ignorance or even in spite of the facts in the individual case, that generalisation becomes prejudice.

It is the prejudice that is wrong, not the generalisation.

If that is so, why is any generalisation "without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) ... not acceptable"? If I am making a generalisation but not a prejudice then it may be both courteous and useful of me to say so, but why is it compulsory?

If I am not racist, why do I have to tell you that I am not racist? If I am not racist, but I say something that a racist person might say, is it necessarily up to me to make the difference? If you make the mistake of thinking that I am racist for that, it is you who make the mistake of generalisation and prejudice about me.

[Grinder]

The place in between those two extremes is where the questions and problems arise.

Is it acceptable to generalise? I say yes, some valid things can only be said by generalisation. It is when the generalisation is applied to individuals, in ignorance or even in spite of the facts in the individual case, that generalisation becomes prejudice.

It is the prejudice that is wrong, not the generalisation.

If that is so, why is any generalisation "without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) ... not acceptable"? If I am making a generalisation but not a prejudice then it may be both courteous and useful of me to say so, but why is it compulsory?

If I am not racist, why do I have to tell you that I am not racist? If I am not racist, but I say something that a racist person might say, is it necessarily up to me to make the difference? If you make the mistake of thinking that I am racist for that, it is you who make the mistake of generalisation and prejudice about me.

So we should not be surprised - there is no "litmus test" for racism.

• With no test at all, those who are the subjects of generalisation might be victims of prejudice.
• With too simple a test, those who are generalising might be the victims in terms of false accusation.

If it was simple there would be no issue.

[Pickle2]

e.g. My experience of working with 4 major Scouse(ianar) systems integrators is that while they are cheaper, and whilst they are technically very good and polite -they simply have no(ianar) capacity for management(ianar),
worse of all - their food always seems to stink out the entire floor when they use the microwave(ianar)

:

You forgot to mention that they are thieving bastards.