There are two things you can guarantee when they say something like that. The first is that they've never been discriminated against themselves. The second is that they know someone who knows someone who has.

A third is that they use racial slurs, but either 'humorously' or to illustrate their freedom as an English citizen to say whatever they want.
In any case, that's not discrimination, it's just words.

I read that article yesterday and looked through the comments and rather despaired at the widespread failure to grasp that the study investigated perceptions, not objective measures. For some reason I was drawn back to skim it again today and I'm left thinking there is just too much eagerness. Too many people triumphantly holding up the evidence that they are right to be racist fuckwits. The raw neediness is terrible. Despite the obvious stupidity, limited life experience and all-round ignorance on display most of the comments were written by people who were clearly primed to only read the article as confirming their prejudice.

The Mail knows their audience of course and their readers know where to get their daily dose of victimhood, self-righteous indignation and hate. But what a repellent set-up. I sat opposite a Mail reader on the train yesterday who harrumphed and tut-tutted his way through his comic for the entire journey. A real bitter old sod. How can a person sit there and soak this nonsense up, surrounded by lots of contradictory evidence? It's back to perception I suppose - frames of reference. We see what we look for. He could have looked at a beautiful sunset through the window and seen skin-cancer coming for him. Always him.

Nicely put, J.
I admit I scroll through the Mail looking for items that reinforce my own prejudices about the prejudices of the Mail. Then I go and read the Guardian, with a different (less critical?) mindset. Silly of me, really, because once you work out how journalism works, there's really no excuse for reading any of it without sharp teeth and claws.
Reading through the comments about anti-white prejudice, it strikes me that nobody has bothered to give an example. Neither the commenters nor the journalist (nor even the researchers?) have tried to define discrimination, or talk about degrees of discrimination. It's basically a conversation in which everyone agrees without attempting to understand what the others are talking about. The word that springs to mind to describe such people is 'bores'.

They don't bother with any of that evidence based nonsense, they've got "common sense" on their side.

I've made my mind up don't bother me with the facts.

Here is a textbook example of how they nudge their readers to where they privately want to be anyway.



Something as simple as a caption under a photograph. If it wasn't about a black girl with non-mainstream beliefs it might have read differently somehow. Perhaps "Mr Justice Keith, who was appointed to oversee the trial".

The trick is that this symbiotic little charade has to be just disguised enough to absolve the readership from having to feel too bad about being total abject cunts. Then they can get on with unpicking the fabric of society whilst bemoaning their fate. That done they can get back to curtain-twitching and spreading gossip about the black family who moved in 5 streets away and oh think of the house prices. Some of my best friends are black, they're just like real people, marvellous sense of rhythmn. Let's put the Great back in Great Yarmouth. Won't somebody think of the Great Crested Grebe? Nurse where's me pills?!

'Racist' Australia compared to Apartheid South Africa by UN Human Rights commissioner

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1NO9JfQxd

The comments!

You heard it here first people, racism doesn't exist because some criminals are darkie

_________________
'Because we've reached the limits of what rectal probing can teach us'

'The browning of America': Time lapse map shows how minorities in U.S. will become the majority



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1NaY4MKKH

best rated comment

_________________
"Fanaticism is the only form of willpower to which the weak minded and irresolute can rise."

and the votes say, down with...racial harmony?

it's not fantastically put together but he makes a good point, a lot of these "non-white" people are actually going to be mixed race, so have a white background, even a majority white background (say, a single black grandparent).

_________________
i have an art blog: http://procrastinationathon.blogspot.com/
and a review blog: http://blindwithwoodenhands.blogspot.com/
double blog! what does it mean?

Mail readers love to bash Naomi Campbell for some reason:


OK, Rollo, how about if we compared your daughter to a slab of meat. Does that make it easier?
And why can none of these cretins spell Campbell? Izz it because she is black?


OED definition of racism: "(Belief in, adherence to, or advocacy of) the theory that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, qualities etc specific to that race … prejudice, discrimination, antagonism based on this."
john f pedantry fail.


FFS. And it's RoberTsons, with a T, you illiterate cunt.

Naturally when someone with half a brain comes along, the red arrows fly:

It will save loads going to Spain for two weeks for a suntan.

_________________
"Fanaticism is the only form of willpower to which the weak minded and irresolute can rise."

There are a lot of reassuringly intelligent comments on the N-word story, including several pointing the finger at the Mail and its readers for creating a climate in which racism can flourish. Still, many are struggling to understand the concept of privilege: perhaps because they are adamant that they, Mail readers, are the true oppressed people, they don't see that the meaning of a word changes according to who is saying it, in what context, and to whom. Or perhaps they're just thick.


Yo Rob in Hamsterdam! Dig the fly gangsta references. Extra respeck for da homophobia!
When I be hanging with my crew, I feel them when they say da N-word ain't no less malicious, no less racist than it ever be.
Also, that be a big exception, innit!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -life.html





However, the good news is that the highest rated comments are all hostile to him.

He ought to put himself forward as a Ukip candidate. They're always on the look out for good men, and I'm sure he'd fit right in.

Or maybe become the face of the Campaign Against Political Correctness.

_________________
MY COMMENTS ARE FROM THE HORSES MOUTH AND ARE ALL FACTS