Islam is NOT a race, it's a religion. A person of any race can convert to Islam is they so wish.
But as it is a religion, it is merely something that is freely chosen by the follower and so not the same at all as race, sex or sexuality as they are things that are not chosen.
It's insulting that religion (any one and all of them) keep trying to jump on the same bandwagon as things that are not chosen and discriminated against.
But what's the difference between insulting someone for being black any different from doing so because they are Muslim?
Islam is NOT a race, it's a religion. A person of any race can convert to Islam is they so wish.
But as it is a religion, it is merely something that is freely chosen by the follower and so not the same at all as race, sex or sexuality as they are things that are not chosen.
It's insulting that religion (any one and all of them) keep trying to jump on the same bandwagon as things that are not chosen and discriminated against.
I agree, and furthermore religions are merely ideologies, and the proponents of these ideologies should have no more protection from criticism than those with a particular political stance.
To try and lump criticism of religion in with racism is just absurd.
I agree, and furthermore religions are merely ideologies, and the proponents of these ideologies should have no more protection from criticism than those with a particular political stance. To try and lump criticism of religion in with racism is just absurd.
The word racist gets thrown about too much and if often used by people to get what they want, But there are true cases of racism and like another poster says if you prosecute false cases then people who really are victims are not going to come forward, but I believe when there is a chance of someone losing their job due to allegations of racism then the word of the 'victim' should never be just taken as true and that there should always be other evidence to support it.
This is a scenario that happened to me a couple of years ago.
I was on a train in the first class carriage with a FC ticket, there was only one other passenger who was a black woman, the ticket collector (white like me) came to inspect tickets now, and this is the important bit he came UP the train and got to the black woman first, as soon as he asked for her ticket she started screaming and shouting and this was the gist of it.
The TC was a racist because he hadn't asked me to show my ticket , even when he explained that he hadn't got to me yet she kept on and on, she then said that he was racist because he was assuming that a black person couldn't afford to travel first class and that he wanted it kept for white people and kept yelling 'is this South Africa'.
When she did finally show her ticket it was for standard class and the TC then proceeded to ask her to pay a premium stating she could get a fine or a criminal record for travelling in first class on a standard ticket but he was giving her the chance to pay extra.
At this point the train came into my station and I had to leave, however I did show the TC my own ticket before I did so.
I felt so strongly about this that I emailed the train company and reported the incident, stating that the TC had not been racist and that I would happily attend a tribunal to support him if allegations were made, the reply I got stated the company took all allegations of racism very seriously and thanked me for my report, two months later I got a phone call asking me for my version of events again so it seems that the passenger did indeed make a complaint, I was told 'thank you we will contact you of we need any other information' I heard nothing back.
In a case like this I would imagine there would have been other evidence cctv showing the TC got to the other passenger first, the fact the passenger had the incorrect ticket and knew she should not have been in that carriage.
Its situations like the above that need addressing but In a way that does not betittle or excuse real racist incidents.
I would be very surprised if the passenger really made a formal complaint of racism that needed investigation. That's because, at least the way you describe it, it's not an example of a false accusation of racism, but a scam, and I'm sure the train companies are well used to this kind of thing happening.
It's not unlike something that many people will have encountered, where a woman approaches them in the street, bursts into tears and says she's trying to drive somewhere, her children are in the car, she's run out of petrol and she has no money. Of course the car full of children is conveniently "round the corner". The London variation on this is that she (or he) has been out with friends, they've all gone home and she has no money for a cab. At this point even the male perpetrators have been known to burst into tears!
People will demean themselves if they think it'll help them get away with a scam. Her screaming and histrionics were just an act.
All I know is its not nice to be called racist when your not. I was once talking to a guy in the pub and we were talking about F1 and I'm a big fan. I said I wasn't a Lewis Hamilton fan but a Kimi Raikkonen fan at which point he started shouting that I must be a racist and I should just admit it. Very embarrassing if nothing else everyone was looking at me like I was the scum of the earth.
Yes, but when you say 'situations like this', it's not a very common situation, is it? She sounds completely off her head. How many of us have genuinely encountered a black person trying to travel first class without a first class ticket, then screaming that the ticket collector is racist?
That is massively simplfying a complicated situation. (Jewish people have the same debate). People of any race can be Muslim or Jewish, but that doesn't stop a MASSIVE body of racist material having built up against both groups.
There is a certain (very) grim amusement in watching overtly racist sites trying, as some are, to suggest that Sikhs, for all that they wear funny clothes, are good guys and should not be confused with Muslims, who are all evil. Of course a lot of people on the sites cannot grasp this at all - but they're BROWN! - and indeed, it is always going to be a challenge for such people to distinguish one scary foreign looking person from another.
Of course the great majority of Muslims have not 'chosen', in any real sense, their religion, especially if you take out Nation of Islam. No one chooses the family and culture they are born into. And you can't possibly ignore the size of the overlap between racists and islamophobes. If you did a Venn diagram it would be nearly all overlap. Non Muslims who have Muslim friends are extremely unlikely to be racist; it is possible of course, but very unlikely. People who have friends of all races are very unlikely to be Islamophobes; they will know Muslims as ordinary, likeable people and not as stereotypical bogeymen.
Actually when I posted this on a rail forum I had a lot of replies from rail employees saying its not unusual for people who are trying to travel without a ticket or the correct ticket to accuse the TCs of being racist and targeting them so whilst not many of us here will have seen the scenario I described but for rail employees its quite common.
And its not just black/Asian people accusing white TCs either one poster who described himself as Asian says he gets the same from black and white passengers.
Actually when I posted this on a rail forum I had a lot of replies from rail employees saying its not unusual for people who are trying to travel without a ticket or the correct ticket to accuse the TCs of being racist and targeting them so whilst not many of us here will have seen the scenario I described but for rail employees its quite common.
And its not just black/Asian people accusing white TCs either one poster who described himself as Asian says he gets the same from black and white passengers.
Exactly. It's a scam wrapped up in a bit of playacting. Doubtless the train company has to follow procedure to ensure it is accountable, but the accusation of racism is part of an act not a genuine complaint.
But what's the difference between insulting someone for being black any different from doing so because they are Muslim?
Insult? Do you actually mean taking offence as someone didn't say something they objected to?
If so, then if the comment was racist, sexist or about their sexuality then no that is not right and fair as they did not chose that and had no say in the matter.
If it's about something that they themselves freely chose to do or follow, then that is their problem. And when that thing is a load of nonsense that they can't and refuse to prove that there is anything actually in it, then even more so.
Shall I just invent something utterly stupid and when quite rightly, someone tells me it's utter nonsense, I claim I am offended and that everyone should pay me respect for talking nonsense. Where will that nonsense end?
So what you try to put on others by choosing to see it as them insulting the other party, should actually be seen for what it is: the other party taking offence for something that is and always will be complete nonsense. Just why should people pussy-foot around religions any more? They had their chance and have had 1000s of years to prove their nonsense claims and have failed to do so.
I agree, and furthermore religions are merely ideologies, and the proponents of these ideologies should have no more protection from criticism than those with a particular political stance.
To try and lump criticism of religion in with racism is just absurd.
Yes agreed! Religion just like politics is nothing more than what someone dreams up in the heads and is not the same as conditions that are not chosen. It should be questioned and every single time it is, it always fails to support it's nonsense.
Then they carry on regardless and start things and do things in the name of that nonsense.
It require constant questioning and not allowed to hide behind it's band wagon jumping on others rightful protection.
...
Of course the great majority of Muslims have not 'chosen', in any real sense, their religion, especially if you take out Nation of Islam. No one chooses the family and culture they are born into.
Yes, but an awful lot of people (at least in modern 'Western' democracies) do choose their religion, or choose to have none. (Which is not to say it's the easy sort of choice Jesse Pinkman seems to think it is.)
And you can't possibly ignore the size of the overlap between racists and islamophobes. If you did a Venn diagram it would be nearly all overlap. Non Muslims who have Muslim friends are extremely unlikely to be racist; it is possible of course, but very unlikely. People who have friends of all races are very unlikely to be Islamophobes; they will know Muslims as ordinary, likeable people and not as stereotypical bogeymen.
Evidence for that? (The rest of the paragraph doesn't show almost complete overlap.)
Some ignorant bigot (Person A) says something Islamaphobic to Person B - who happens to be a Muslim.
Person B accuses Person A of being 'racist'.
Person B (the victim) is prosecuted for calling out the 'racist'.
Sure, being Islamaphobic isn't technically racist, but it's still hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, morally wrong and basically exactly the same as racism - yet people like to use semantics to wriggle their way out of taking responsibility for the stupid things they say.
And same goes to the hateful Muslims they are out there.
Yes, but when you say 'situations like this', it's not a very common situation, is it? She sounds completely off her head. How many of us have genuinely encountered a black person trying to travel first class without a first class ticket, then screaming that the ticket collector is racist?
That is massively simplfying a complicated situation. (Jewish people have the same debate). People of any race can be Muslim or Jewish, but that doesn't stop a MASSIVE body of racist material having built up against both groups.
There is a certain (very) grim amusement in watching overtly racist sites trying, as some are, to suggest that Sikhs, for all that they wear funny clothes, are good guys and should not be confused with Muslims, who are all evil. Of course a lot of people on the sites cannot grasp this at all - but they're BROWN! - and indeed, it is always going to be a challenge for such people to distinguish one scary foreign looking person from another.
Of course the great majority of Muslims have not 'chosen', in any real sense, their religion, especially if you take out Nation of Islam. No one chooses the family and culture they are born into. And you can't possibly ignore the size of the overlap between racists and islamophobes. If you did a Venn diagram it would be nearly all overlap. Non Muslims who have Muslim friends are extremely unlikely to be racist; it is possible of course, but very unlikely. People who have friends of all races are very unlikely to be Islamophobes; they will know Muslims as ordinary, likeable people and not as stereotypical bogeymen.
who just happen to be, for the most part, homophobic misogynists. Strangely I have very few friends who are practising muslims for these very reasons. Course if your not quite as discerning about such things I'm sure you get along just fine.
Depends what you deem as Islamophobia, because I don't see anything particularly wrong with hostility towards Islam and its backward practices around the world.
I would take Islamophobia to mean an irrational dislike of Muslims, or prejudice towards them. Justifiable criticism of the religion itself, or some of its practices, wouldn't count.
The word racist gets thrown about too much and if often used by people to get what they want, But there are true cases of racism and like another poster says if you prosecute false cases then people who really are victims are not going to come forward, but I believe when there is a chance of someone losing their job due to allegations of racism then the word of the 'victim' should never be just taken as true and that there should always be other evidence to support it.
This is a scenario that happened to me a couple of years ago.
I was on a train in the first class carriage with a FC ticket, there was only one other passenger who was a black woman, the ticket collector (white like me) came to inspect tickets now, and this is the important bit he came UP the train and got to the black woman first, as soon as he asked for her ticket she started screaming and shouting and this was the gist of it.
The TC was a racist because he hadn't asked me to show my ticket , even when he explained that he hadn't got to me yet she kept on and on, she then said that he was racist because he was assuming that a black person couldn't afford to travel first class and that he wanted it kept for white people and kept yelling 'is this South Africa'.
When she did finally show her ticket it was for standard class and the TC then proceeded to ask her to pay a premium stating she could get a fine or a criminal record for travelling in first class on a standard ticket but he was giving her the chance to pay extra.
At this point the train came into my station and I had to leave, however I did show the TC my own ticket before I did so.
I felt so strongly about this that I emailed the train company and reported the incident, stating that the TC had not been racist and that I would happily attend a tribunal to support him if allegations were made, the reply I got stated the company took all allegations of racism very seriously and thanked me for my report, two months later I got a phone call asking me for my version of events again so it seems that the passenger did indeed make a complaint, I was told 'thank you we will contact you of we need any other information' I heard nothing back.
In a case like this I would imagine there would have been other evidence cctv showing the TC got to the other passenger first, the fact the passenger had the incorrect ticket and knew she should not have been in that carriage.
Its situations like the above that need addressing but In a way that does not betittle or excuse real racist incidents.
I have witnessed incidents like this often. I work in retail, in an area where there are many nationalities. On a daily basis there are screams of "racist" when young people are asked for ID. When someone thinks something is cheaper than the actual price its "racist" apparently to not give them the item at the price they want it to be. It's also "racist" to refuse to give back the price of something that was apparently off but not actually brought back into the store. Items with security tags in, I've been called unfair and racist when these items are being bought by a black person. Apparently these tags are only put on there if a black person wants them and so on and on. Bahaviour like this is what dillutes the whole racism issue. People, of course, should be protected from real racism but it seems there are few people out there who actually know what this is.
If someone cry racism and it did not happen should be done, like people cry rape when it doesn't happened to be done,in fact anyone that lies about being a victim of crime should be done.
If someone cry racism and it did not happen should be done, like people cry rape when it doesn't happened to be done,in fact anyone that lies about being a victim of crime should be done.
Racism, unlike rape, isn't necessarily a crime. So there might not be a victim at all.
Racism, unlike rape, isn't necessarily a crime. So there might not be a victim at all.
It could be a civil matter. If someone published a story that X was a racist because they only employed white people, and it wasn't true, then X's only recourse would be to sue for libel. I don't think that it should be a crime, but it could be very damaging to X's reputation if it went unchallenged.
Islam is NOT a race, it's a religion. A person of any race can convert to Islam is they so wish.
But as it is a religion, it is merely something that is freely chosen by the follower and so not the same at all as race, sex or sexuality as they are things that are not chosen.
It's insulting that religion (any one and all of them) keep trying to jump on the same bandwagon as things that are not chosen and discriminated against.
What's the purpose of making the distinction between chosen and unchosen characteristics? Are you saying that just because someone has chosen something they are fair game for discrimination and hostility?
The reason we think it isn't ok to be hostile towards gays isn't because "they haven't chosen it"; it's because there's nothing wrong with it, and therefore such hostility is misplaced. The reason we are hostile towards paedophilia isn't because "they've chosen it", because of course, they haven't; it's because there is something wrong with it (ie. it is innately abusive). Do you see the point I'm making? Whether or not a characteristic is chosen is not a sound basis for deciding whether hostility towards that characteristic is ok.
The other thing to mention is that "free choice" is surely not as black and white as you are making out. Most people are brought up into their religion, so the choice they've had in the matter is barely any more than the choice I have to speak English. Other languages are of course available, but to say I had a free choice in the matter would be disingenuous.
Finally, where religion is concerned we should, I think, challenge the potentially harmful parts of any religion, but we should make a distinction between people who identify as religious with people who carry out harmful acts in the name of that religion. To pretend that all Christians are homophobes or that all Muslims are terrorists is again disingenuous and an excuse to be prejudice.
So, when Person A makes disparaging remarks about Muslims, perhaps how they should all be "sent back" or something similar, wouldn't you agree that if Person B said they were being racist, the semantic argument that followed would be largely pointless, since Person A is still being unfairly prejudiced towards Muslims? The semantic argument is used to deflect the criticism and legitimate the prejudice.
What's the purpose of making the distinction between chosen and unchosen characteristics? Are you saying that just because someone has chosen something they are fair game for discrimination and hostility?
.
If I choose to wear underpants on my head whilst shopping, I should not be surprised at the negative comments.
Yes there is a fundamental difference between something that isn't a choice and something that is. Then we can add in the irrational silliness of that choice.
'I think stupid things, now respect me and you are not allowed to comment at all on that as I have jumped on the same bandwagon as people whose status they didn't choose' - No, I don't think so!
I wish religion would stop trying to find hiding places and supress everyone. That trick is old now.
If I choose to wear underpants on my head whilst shopping, I should not be surprised at the negative comments.
I didn't suggest otherwise. Perhaps unintentionally, you are responding to a strawman argument in which choices shouldn't be criticised regardless of what they are.
Yes there is a fundamental difference between something that isn't a choice and something that is. Then we can add in the irrational silliness of that choice.
'I think stupid things, now respect me and you are not allowed to comment at all on that as I have jumped on the same bandwagon as people whose status they didn't choose' - No, I don't think so!
I wish religion would stop trying to find hiding places and supress everyone. That trick is old now.
Re the bit in bold, I didn't suggest that at all. I did my best to lay out my argument and you've snipped it and put words in my mouth.
This isn't about whether or not beliefs should have to be respected regardless of their validity, which they shouldn't. It isn't about whether or not people can pass comment on religious doctrine, which they can. I am an atheist and in my opinion religious beliefs are bollocks. However, I would staunchly protest that hostility, prejudice, and plain nastiness towards someone because of their particular religion is wrong.
You seem to be focused very much on the issue of choice, and you obviously feel very strongly about it, but you have ignored all the points I actually made about it! Do you think that just because something is not chosen that makes it benign? I gave you one very clear example of that not being the case.
The OP has a point. 'Racist' is another one of those words that gets thrown about so much (even when it doesn't apply) that it is bound to affect genuine cases of racism in that they don't get taken as seriously as they should.
Not sure how making it an offence would work though.
The OP has a point. 'Racist' is another one of those words that gets thrown about so much (even when it doesn't apply) that it is bound to affect genuine cases of racism in that they don't get taken as seriously as they should.
Not as much as making it illegal to accuse people of being racism would affect those cases I think.
Maybe we should stick with the traditional right of reply rather than introduce repressive legislation.
What's the purpose of making the distinction between chosen and unchosen characteristics?
The old adage "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" - Meaning if someone is having problems because of something they have chosen, that's their problem!
So that you can love the sinner, but hate the sin!
It's little trick the religious taught me.
The old adage "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" - Meaning if someone is having problems because of something they have chosen, that's their problem!
Wow. So if someone is being abused, bullied or discriminated against because of their religion then it's their fault and the onus is on them to change? Would you say the same to someone being bullied over their choice of music or clothes? Blame the perpetrator not the victim!
Comments
But what's the difference between insulting someone for being black any different from doing so because they are Muslim?
I agree, and furthermore religions are merely ideologies, and the proponents of these ideologies should have no more protection from criticism than those with a particular political stance.
To try and lump criticism of religion in with racism is just absurd.
No one is saying that.
I would be very surprised if the passenger really made a formal complaint of racism that needed investigation. That's because, at least the way you describe it, it's not an example of a false accusation of racism, but a scam, and I'm sure the train companies are well used to this kind of thing happening.
It's not unlike something that many people will have encountered, where a woman approaches them in the street, bursts into tears and says she's trying to drive somewhere, her children are in the car, she's run out of petrol and she has no money. Of course the car full of children is conveniently "round the corner". The London variation on this is that she (or he) has been out with friends, they've all gone home and she has no money for a cab. At this point even the male perpetrators have been known to burst into tears!
People will demean themselves if they think it'll help them get away with a scam. Her screaming and histrionics were just an act.
Actually when I posted this on a rail forum I had a lot of replies from rail employees saying its not unusual for people who are trying to travel without a ticket or the correct ticket to accuse the TCs of being racist and targeting them so whilst not many of us here will have seen the scenario I described but for rail employees its quite common.
And its not just black/Asian people accusing white TCs either one poster who described himself as Asian says he gets the same from black and white passengers.
Exactly. It's a scam wrapped up in a bit of playacting. Doubtless the train company has to follow procedure to ensure it is accountable, but the accusation of racism is part of an act not a genuine complaint.
Insult? Do you actually mean taking offence as someone didn't say something they objected to?
If so, then if the comment was racist, sexist or about their sexuality then no that is not right and fair as they did not chose that and had no say in the matter.
If it's about something that they themselves freely chose to do or follow, then that is their problem. And when that thing is a load of nonsense that they can't and refuse to prove that there is anything actually in it, then even more so.
Shall I just invent something utterly stupid and when quite rightly, someone tells me it's utter nonsense, I claim I am offended and that everyone should pay me respect for talking nonsense. Where will that nonsense end?
So what you try to put on others by choosing to see it as them insulting the other party, should actually be seen for what it is: the other party taking offence for something that is and always will be complete nonsense. Just why should people pussy-foot around religions any more? They had their chance and have had 1000s of years to prove their nonsense claims and have failed to do so.
Yes agreed! Religion just like politics is nothing more than what someone dreams up in the heads and is not the same as conditions that are not chosen. It should be questioned and every single time it is, it always fails to support it's nonsense.
Then they carry on regardless and start things and do things in the name of that nonsense.
It require constant questioning and not allowed to hide behind it's band wagon jumping on others rightful protection.
Yes, but an awful lot of people (at least in modern 'Western' democracies) do choose their religion, or choose to have none. (Which is not to say it's the easy sort of choice Jesse Pinkman seems to think it is.)
Evidence for that? (The rest of the paragraph doesn't show almost complete overlap.)
And same goes to the hateful Muslims they are out there.
who just happen to be, for the most part, homophobic misogynists. Strangely I have very few friends who are practising muslims for these very reasons. Course if your not quite as discerning about such things I'm sure you get along just fine.
I would take Islamophobia to mean an irrational dislike of Muslims, or prejudice towards them. Justifiable criticism of the religion itself, or some of its practices, wouldn't count.
I have witnessed incidents like this often. I work in retail, in an area where there are many nationalities. On a daily basis there are screams of "racist" when young people are asked for ID. When someone thinks something is cheaper than the actual price its "racist" apparently to not give them the item at the price they want it to be. It's also "racist" to refuse to give back the price of something that was apparently off but not actually brought back into the store. Items with security tags in, I've been called unfair and racist when these items are being bought by a black person. Apparently these tags are only put on there if a black person wants them and so on and on. Bahaviour like this is what dillutes the whole racism issue. People, of course, should be protected from real racism but it seems there are few people out there who actually know what this is.
Racism, unlike rape, isn't necessarily a crime. So there might not be a victim at all.
It could be a civil matter. If someone published a story that X was a racist because they only employed white people, and it wasn't true, then X's only recourse would be to sue for libel. I don't think that it should be a crime, but it could be very damaging to X's reputation if it went unchallenged.
What's the purpose of making the distinction between chosen and unchosen characteristics? Are you saying that just because someone has chosen something they are fair game for discrimination and hostility?
The reason we think it isn't ok to be hostile towards gays isn't because "they haven't chosen it"; it's because there's nothing wrong with it, and therefore such hostility is misplaced. The reason we are hostile towards paedophilia isn't because "they've chosen it", because of course, they haven't; it's because there is something wrong with it (ie. it is innately abusive). Do you see the point I'm making? Whether or not a characteristic is chosen is not a sound basis for deciding whether hostility towards that characteristic is ok.
The other thing to mention is that "free choice" is surely not as black and white as you are making out. Most people are brought up into their religion, so the choice they've had in the matter is barely any more than the choice I have to speak English. Other languages are of course available, but to say I had a free choice in the matter would be disingenuous.
Finally, where religion is concerned we should, I think, challenge the potentially harmful parts of any religion, but we should make a distinction between people who identify as religious with people who carry out harmful acts in the name of that religion. To pretend that all Christians are homophobes or that all Muslims are terrorists is again disingenuous and an excuse to be prejudice.
So, when Person A makes disparaging remarks about Muslims, perhaps how they should all be "sent back" or something similar, wouldn't you agree that if Person B said they were being racist, the semantic argument that followed would be largely pointless, since Person A is still being unfairly prejudiced towards Muslims? The semantic argument is used to deflect the criticism and legitimate the prejudice.
If I choose to wear underpants on my head whilst shopping, I should not be surprised at the negative comments.
Yes there is a fundamental difference between something that isn't a choice and something that is. Then we can add in the irrational silliness of that choice.
'I think stupid things, now respect me and you are not allowed to comment at all on that as I have jumped on the same bandwagon as people whose status they didn't choose' - No, I don't think so!
I wish religion would stop trying to find hiding places and supress everyone. That trick is old now.
Re the bit in bold, I didn't suggest that at all. I did my best to lay out my argument and you've snipped it and put words in my mouth.
This isn't about whether or not beliefs should have to be respected regardless of their validity, which they shouldn't. It isn't about whether or not people can pass comment on religious doctrine, which they can. I am an atheist and in my opinion religious beliefs are bollocks. However, I would staunchly protest that hostility, prejudice, and plain nastiness towards someone because of their particular religion is wrong.
You seem to be focused very much on the issue of choice, and you obviously feel very strongly about it, but you have ignored all the points I actually made about it! Do you think that just because something is not chosen that makes it benign? I gave you one very clear example of that not being the case.
Not sure how making it an offence would work though.
Maybe we should stick with the traditional right of reply rather than introduce repressive legislation.
So that you can love the sinner, but hate the sin!
It's little trick the religious taught me.
The old adage "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" - Meaning if someone is having problems because of something they have chosen, that's their problem!
Ummm...it's called a 'hate crime' and is indeed illegal!