The topic of political correctness is complex and subtle. Being politically correct can be over the top if it gets too rigid. If everything we say has to end up sounding like an equal opportunities statement it can border on to the ridiculous. On the other hand how far should people be allowed to go in expressing prejudices?

I would say that part of the problem is that people often use political correctness to cover up there own prejudices. Perhaps on some level, we all have prejudices, which are really preconceived assumptions. There is a danger that too much political correctness can simply push prejudice underground, to fester, but emerge in some more dangerous way.

But it is a grey area, because if no attempts are made to rule out prejudiced opinions, against any racial or other group, it can get to the point where prejudice is just acceptable.

I don't think you know what "adjusting" means. . — fdrake

Nor did my tutor in statistical methodology when I studied Sociology and Politics at university. Nonetheless, I know my way around SPSS, and I passed the module with a reasonable grade.

In a statistical analysis of data - in this case police killings, there are lots of confounding variables. In this case, crime rates are higher in poor neighbourhoods, and poor neighbourhoods are more likely to contain more non-whites. You need to "adjust" for the economic causes of police killings since they're causally related to demographic disparities in police killings - systemic racism. — fdrake

No, you really don't - because that's tautological. You will only prove the assumptions you feed in to skew the data. Bayesian analysis attributes a hierarchical weighted value to data points. The death of a black person is not equivalent to the death of a white person, and so - unsurprisingly, the analysis shows black people are killed disproportionately. You assume systematic racism - so you find systematic racism.

What you've made is an emotional appeal, and I can see it as persuasive if you feel you are under attack. And your civil liberties and equality of opportunity are under attack; just not by working class civil rights activists and their working class allies. If you live in the UK, your civil liberties are being eroded by Bojo and his possy of gammon faced clowns. — fdrake

If this were a right wing forum - like such a thing could exist on the internet without getting de-platformed, I'd gladly rip into "Bojo and his possy of gammon faced clowns" (as you describe them, careless of the racist overtones because they're white.) But this is a left wing forum, so let's focus on the left - (and their possy of chocolate faced clowns Is that acceptable language? No, it is not!) ...in particular, on the left's abandonment of the white working class in favour of an upside down form of identity politics.

I gave you a concrete example of politically correct discrimination against white people. It's not a feeling that you can dismiss by offering your patented brand condescending left wing sympathy and understanding. You can't "whatabout" me by turning this on the Tories. You haven't got the back of the average white working class man. Another concrete example - in the midst of the brexit fiasco, Labour went completely AWOL and did one of their typically searching anal audits on anti-Semitism. A Labour government would be dangerously susceptible to being thrown off track in the midst of a crisis - so utterly consumed are they by political correctness. It's hypocritical, it's unjust, and worse than all that, it's weak. Knock if off!

I honestly can't believe you think that calling Bojo and his incompetent toffs "gammon faced clowns" is racist against white people. They absolutely have a choice not to be gammon faced clowns, the same can't be said for skin colour. I'm calling them names because of policy decisions.

Regardless, I see you have a very low bar for branding events instances of racism against white people in the UK, how could you have possibly missed systemic racism against PoCs in the UK if your bar is that low?

I'd guess, as you've highlighted is possible, it's because you don't want to see.

In your estimation, do the wealthy nations that struggle with the problem of mass migration also exploit the countries that the immigrants are coming from? — Echarmion

Depends on what you mean by exploit. Is 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid exploitative? Is vast amounts of charity, given by British people anytime there's a war, famine or natural disaster anywhere in the world - exploitative? Are equally vast sums earned by migrants to Britain, and sent abroad - exploitative? I don't know what you mean by exploit. It's one of those 'eye of the beholder' things.

I don't really get that notion of pride. I don't contribute to my own whiteness, so it doesn't seem to be something I could be proud of. If I wanted to be proud of, say, past inventions, I'd at least have to consider my conduct to be in some way a continuation of the inventors ethos / methods. — Echarmion

But you get the concept of an inherited shame for slavery - I suppose? Given that slavery existed since the dawn of time, and was practiced by every civilisation until the west put an end to it, and given that western civilisation also invented everything - in those terms, on balance, its positive contributions to the world massively outweigh the bad, and we should be able to be proud of our history - but on the contrary, the left seek to shame us with it.

Regardless, I see you have a very low bar for branding events instances of racism against white people in the UK, how could you have possibly missed systemic racism against PoCs in the UK if your bar is that low? — fdrake

This seems astonishingly common and the crux of the matter. Non-racial slurs against white people are proof the the whites -- the ones who did slavery, lynch mobs, segregation, etc. -- are the oppressed race, while that same history of slavery, lynchings, segregation, etc., right through to the repeated murder of black people by white cops caught on video, to just now a white poster getting banned for calling someone the N-word, do not count as evidence, mere anomolies. This speaks to a rank hypocrisy that seems to characterise the alt-right, if not the right generally.

I don't think that says what you think it does, or what it appears to say. — counterpunch

It says exactly what it says:

It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime, and thus the racial bias in police shooting may be explainable as a proximate response by police to areas of high violence and crime (community violence theory [14, 15, 23, 35]). In other words, if the environment is such that race and crime covary, police shooting ratios may show signs of racial bias, even if it is crime, not race, that is the causal driver of police shootings. In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings, irrespective of whether or not other controls were included in the model. As such, the results of this study provide no empirical support for the idea that racial bias in police shootings (in the time period, 2011–2014, described in this study) is driven by race-specific crime rates (at least as measured by the proxies of assault- and weapons-related arrest rates in 2012).

In other words, that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police is not explained by unarmed black people being 3.49 times more likely than unarmed white people to commit a crime that warrants being shot by the police.

So you aren't aware just how close Marx is to Ricardo's labor theory of value? If the basic argument was (with Benkei) about the labor theory of value, referring to the origins here is totally reasonable. Might add that Smith had also similar view (as Ricardo et al). — ssu

Marx's labor theory of value is nonetheless distinct and refined from Ricardo's and Smith's definition, and the original argument with Benkei wasn't about the general labor theory of value, but Marx's in particular.

Just admit you have no idea what you are talking.

the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying? you can keep paying someone else to do maintenance of that’s what you want. your landlord does anyway. — Pfhorrest

In order to do this you'd have to plop down a significant amount of cash and likely cash out investments. This is often a bad financial move because these investments that you sold have a high yearly return and now that money is basically locked into your house and you're no longer getting those returns.

Your desire to own your home outright is a personal preference, not a universal measure of financial health or optimization. If that's how you want to do your finances, fine, but don't treat it as a universal.

I honestly can't believe you think that calling Bojo and his incompetent toffs "gammon faced clowns" is racist against white people. They absolutely have a choice not to be gammon faced clowns, the same can't be said for skin colour. I'm calling them names because of policy decisions. — fdrake

It's the hypocrisy I seek to highlight; not the casual anti white racism per se. It's that you would be screaming blue murder if someone made a similar comment disparaging black people as 'chocolate faced clowns.' And the fact you don't see this as an hypocrisy is precisely the point. Your political correctness hypocritical because you don't apply the same standards equally. This carries forth into areas that matter, like I showed with the concrete example of Stormzy and his exclusively black scholarships, while Thwaites was branded racist - an example that you have failed to address.

Regardless, I see you have a very low bar for branding events instances of racism against white people in the UK, how could you have possibly missed systemic racism against PoCs in the UK if your bar is that low? — fdrake

You've also failed to address the fact that white working class boys are now the lowest performing demographic in British schools, and that Asians are the highest, and highest earning demographic in the US. Nonetheless, this "systematic racism" narrative plays out both sides of the Atlantic. You haven't explained how Asians can be doing so well in a systematically racist society. But in regard to police shootings, you seek to account for every confounding variable, while turning a blind eye to the fact that black people commit massively more crime. You ARE a racist - and the fact you do it in reverse doesn't make it any less morally repugnant.

Suppose I want to say something about racism in Europe. I discover that there's racism in France, so I think I've learned something about Europe.

Subsequently, if I come across Dane who says there's not much racism, I assure him that he's blind to the facts around him.

It's anthropology through a telescope. White people do tend to be blind to the racism around them, but that doesn't mean my Danish person is blind.

How about we allow the world to be complicated?

It's anthropology through a telescope. White people do tend to be blind to the racism around them, but that doesn't mean my Danish person is blind. — frank

Aye. I think the approach should depend on the context, since @counterpunch here has been swearing at me for a while I figured I'd pick up the gauntlet. He's expressedly more interested in trying to dunk on me than engaging in good faith:

My friend, I had no such illusions going in. But please don't discount the possibility that someone other than you and I, reading this, might benefit from seeing a lefty twit get handed his arse over and over again. — counterpunch

"You reap what you sow" pays off in the long run.

Oh. He's looking to "own" a leftist. They don't have many forums open to them these days.

I have an answer - let's give everyone free speech, and let them say what they like, because to my mind, people who say hateful things - it says more about them than the people they hate. Hateful opinions are almost always ignorant opinions. And if they're not ignorant opinions, it's likely something that needs bringing out into the open, and not swept under the politically correct carpet.

I believe in free speech and open discussion but the problem is that people can end up hurting people with their hatred. But, it is true that hatred of others probably stems from self hatred.

But where is that "free speech and open discussion" supposed to take place?
Every conversation takes place somewhere, on someone's turf, not on some neutral no-man's land.

The rule of the turf takes precedence: the one who owns the turf where the conversation takes place has the say.

In order to do this you'd have to plop down a significant amount of cash and likely cash out investments. This is often a bad financial move because these investments that you sold have a high yearly return and now that money is basically locked into your house and you're no longer getting those returns. — BitconnectCarlos

Rent drives up house prices massively. The buy to let and property development to let booms in the UK anyway are the reasons housing affordability is incommensurate with earnings increases. (Oh, and Russian oligarchs buying up London real estate.) Rent is still the problem.

people who say hateful things - it says more about them than the people they hate — counterpunch

a lefty twit — counterpunch

:lol:

It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.?Certainly, my own experience in dealing with racist and homophobic etc people is that you can argue with such people and end up not getting anywhere. My mother has racist friends and I hear her challenge them very well. The next day they say exactly the same thing. The prejudiced mind is most often a closed mind.

My mother has racist friends and I hear her challenge them very well. The next day they say exactly the same thing. The prejudiced mind is most often a closed mind. — Jack Cummins

I've noticed the same. There is something rather sly about it. You think you're having a conversation, turns out they're just finding out what sort of arguments they need to defend against next time.

It says exactly what it says: — Michael

It's a fact, not a theory - that black people commit significantly more crime, and more violent crime in particular. I looked at the statistics, and 13% of the US population (blacks) commit more murders than 76% of the population (whites). There are plenty of poor white people. Inequality isn't the explanation. And you can't over-police murder.

there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings,

You highlight this - and it's easy to miss, but the sentence actually begins:

In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association...

Well, d'uh - you set out to disprove any such association with a Bayesian analysis that attributes a weighted hierarchical value to data points. "In the models fit in this study!" It's left wing academia double speak for "we messed around with the raw data until we proved our own politically correct assumptions."

The raw data is very simple and the explanation is obvious. Black people commit more violent crime. Violent offenders are more likely to get shot.

You think you're having a conversation, — Kenosha Kid

They never saw it as a conversation, a dialogue to begin with.

It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.? — Jack Cummins

But why would one have to?

I think the real problem with hatred and prejudice is that one hasn't come to the final conclusion that they are in fact _not_ evolutionarily advantageous.
Don't you ever wonder whether the people who are full of hatred and prejudice might in fact be better off in life after all?
What valuable things are they missing out on because of their hatred and prejudice? I can't think of any.

People who are full of hatred and prejudice can make life hard for some others, indeed. But beyond that, they don't seem to be missing out on anything. Hatred and prejudice aren't the sort of stumbling blocks and negative things as some people paint them to be.

It's a fact, not a theory - that black people commit significantly more crime, and more violent crime in particular. I looked at the statistics, and 13% of the US population (blacks) commit more murders than 76% of the population (whites). There are plenty of poor white people. Inequality isn't the explanation. And you can't over-police murder. — counterpunch

What bearing does that have on the study cited? It shows that unarmed black people are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white people. Unless unarmed black people commit 3.49 times more crimes that warrant being shot by police than unarmed white people then this shows that there is racial bias. Even if black people are twice as likely to commit such crimes as white people, that would only explain them being twice as likely to be shot, and so the figure still shows racial bias.

Well, d'uh - you set out to disprove any such association with a Bayesian analysis that attributes a weighted hierarchical value to data points. "In the models fit in this study!" It's left wing academia double speak for "we messed around with the raw data until we proved our own politically correct assumptions." — counterpunch

You've yet to show how the models fails. You've just asserted that they do. That's no argument. I'm more inclined to believe a peer-reviewed paper than a random person on the internet who doesn't support his claims.

original argument with Benkei wasn't about the general labor theory of value, but Marx's in particular. — Maw

Still it has the same issue.

Just admit you have no idea what you are talking. — Maw

If you don't understand my point as it seems, then resorting to condescending arrogance and belittling seems the modus operandi for you. Which is very typical.

There are plenty of poor white people. Inequality isn't the explanation. — counterpunch

If there are disproportionately more poor black people than poor white people then inequality could be the explanation. For example if 90% of black people are poor compared to 70% of white people, and if being poor is a motivator to committing violent crimes, then there will be disproportionately more black violent criminals than white violent criminals.

What's your alternative suggestion? That black people are genetically predisposed to violence, and that racial disparities in income and poverty are incidental?

I am quite sure that people who have strong prejudices are not wishing to change and are comfortable with beliefs. On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself.

The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuckity fuck fuck - will you LISTEN. The raw data doesn't show that:

unarmed black people are 3.49 times more likely to be shot. — Michael

The study concludes that, but only AFTER the data has been weighted - such that a black person being shot isn't equal to a white person being shot, when various demographic and factors have been ASSUMED, and taken into account to skew the raw data. It's a TAUTOLOGY. Garbage in - garbage out.

It shows that unarmed black people are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white people. Unless unarmed black people commit 3.49 times more crimes that warrant being shot by police than unarmed white people then this shows that there is racial bias. — Michael

Or they are more likely to resist arrest - thereby endangering the police officer or members of the public.

Even if black people are twice as likely to commit such crimes as white people, that would only explain them being twice as likely to be shot, and so the figure still shows racial bias. — Michael

To repeat myself a third time - 13% of the US population commit more murders than 76% of the population. That's 5.8 times more likely to commit murder, based on the raw data. But again, it's not the crime - it's the arrest. You can commit mass murder - Dylan Roof springs to mind, but give yourself up to police and they won't kill you. You can be selling bootleg CD's outside the kwikimart - Michael Brown springs to mind, act like a jackass and end up dead. The crime is irrelevant - except insofar as it indicates a propensity to resist arrest.

resorting to condescending arrogance and belittling seems the modus operandi for you. Which is very typical. — ssu

Stop being stupid and I'll stop belittling you. Very simple.

You can be selling bootleg CD's outside the kwikimart - Michael Brown springs to mind, act like a jackass and end up dead. The crime is irrelevant - except insofar as it indicates a propensity to resist arrest. — counterpunch

Psychopath

On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself. — Jack Cummins

What if Hitler and other Nazis who committed suicide did so for stoic (sic!) reasons?

I have heard in WWII documentaries that some Nazis who committed suicide around the time of the end of the war wrote in their goodbye letters that they can't bear to live in a world ruled by an inferior race, and that this is why they willingly departed from life.

It's not clear that the Nazis who committed suicide did so out of self-loathing or some such.

The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.

Which is a clear case of the rule of the turf: the owner of the turf has the say as to what is acceptable and what isn't.