to think that it is racist

[ConferencePear]

of the Labour party to charge different entry fees for different ethnic groups ?
I find this quite difficult to believe and wonder why it is not in the national newspapers.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/tories-accuse-labour-racism-over-1096236

No fury.

A) (shouldn't that be '1)'?). Ah, you didn't make that clear.

2. (or B)? Class analysis can't redefine words. I would hold my hands up and say I have a proper degree and haven't done much study in the field of structural inequality.

3. Racism is not complex. It's simple. Equality is simply. The reasons for it may be complex but the thing itself is easily defined. I think this might be where you're confused.

4. Nope. It's 'was'. Whilst we're 'helping' each other though with SPAG, you should use a comma after an introductory word or phrase i.e. "no". HTH

There isn't any need to research or counter argue against someone without a basic grasp of common words. I also find people who suggest that "black people can't be racist, women can't be sexist" rather trying and tedious and best ignored.

Have a lovely day.

So basically you haven't studied it or read about it but you know more than those who have.

Discrimination and equality are incredibly complex things. They seem very simple, particularly to those with privilege but they aren't. Levelling the playing field isn't either.

@Folkhandles

I only made parallels with sexism to demonstrate a point, not to conflate it with the topic in hand, I should have probably made that clearer in my post.

I think you have oversimplified the Rotherham case. There were many issues that silenced those girls and while I agree that the fear of being accused of racism contributed, there were so many other cross sectional factors that played a part, not least of all, ‘class’.

I did agree that positive discrimination is still, discrimination and not always a wise move. Particularly not in the case of the Labour Party. But discrimination and racism have different meanings and in this case, discrimination fits the bill.

Racism is not complex. It's simple. Equality is simply. The reasons for it may be complex but the thing itself is easily defined

Oh dear.
Probably best to move on to a topic you know something about then.

Like YouTube.

P. S it definitely is ‘were’ as you are using past context. But as it is an ungodly hour and typing off my phone without proof reading has exposed my own grammatical errors I’ll let it slide.

you haven't studied it or read about it but you know more than those who have

They seem very simple, particularly to those with privilege but they aren't.

Probably best to move on to a topic you know something about then.

As a black Ugandanese woman (1st gen immigrant), I'm looking forward to you explaining my priviledge or lack of understanding of discrimination and equality. I'm really, really keen to see your replies.

@streetlife

I think you confused context with mood or tense. Either way, if you're arguing that the subjunctive is merging with the indicative in modern usage, if you're talking about the etymological basis of the the word 'anyone' or if you're simply basing the phrase on subject-verb agreement then it's still 'was'. I think this last part may be where you let yourself down. The subject is "anyone" and not "youtubers".

Thanks for that. Indeed I took the YouTubers as collective so ‘YouTubers was that thick’ would be wrong.

Now I’ve taken your SPAG lesson in good grace perhaps you could try to learn a little about the other topic.

Whitesplaining is hard to take in good grace.

You know the ethnicity of posters? You do have skills, I take my hat off to you.

As a black Ugandanese woman (1st gen immigrant), I'm looking forward to you explaining my priviledge or lack of understanding of discrimination and equality. I'm really, really keen to see your replies.

Uganda is a brilliant example of how complicated racism, equality and privilege is. The Asian expulsion from Uganda... Indian Ugandans were theoretically privileged compared to Black Ugandans. But how much of that was prejudice and how much actual privilege is debatable. Idi Amin expels Asian Ugandans with short notice. Meaning Asian Ugandans are or are not privileged? Then their property is removed. But was it their business practices that unfairly gained money from Black Ugandans or was it just happenstance? Then Asians want to return to Uganda after Amin is a memory. Should their property be removed form Black Ugandans and given back to them? What is fair? Who is discriminated against? Who is privileged?

I bow to your loved experience though. Obviously. That sounds sarcastic but absolutely isn't.

BTW Uganda is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been and I loved it there. Total aside.

Seriously i didn't even consider we'd ever have to pay to hear a bloody politician preach anyway!!!
Misses point entirely!

"You know the ethnicity of posters?"

It's a sense - the same way people often guess posters might be men when they're commenting on threads. Race or ethnicity are also fairly pertinent so thought you would have mentioned the fact that you aren't white if it were the case.

"Uganda is a brilliant example of how complicated racism, equality and privilege is."

We aren't talking about equality or priviledge - only racism and for me racism is very simply the belief that racial differences make people from one race superior to another or that people from different races should be treated differently. How this manifests itself and how it can be combated are complex in the extreme.

Fortunately, I think my class meant that I was well shielded from direct racism on the whole. I hadn't said that I moved to the UK when I was 3. My lived experience is British. My lived experience is that women can be sexist, black people can be racist and so on and that people like @streetlife hold back all kinds of progress. You need to acknowledge issues before they can be addressed and I can't help but roll my eyes at her assertion. It seems to be on the same level as ^all white people are racist" - moronic and divisive.

I assume that xenophobia can be grouped with racism and sexism for the most part. Can Scottish people be xenophobic? You'd hardly describe them as powerful. Can gay people be homophobic? Is a prominent campaigner with a large following more -ist or -ic than an old drunk muttering to themselves in a bar? The former certainly has more power.

tl;dr

Anyone can be racist (or other -ists and -ics). Suggesting otherwise seems to be based on guilt or hatred more than anything else.

Whitesplaining is hard to take in good grace.

When people disagree with you it's usually better to explain why you disagree instead of labelling their speech. Labels like the one you have used are themselves an example of thoughtless prejudice, and come across as very hostile.

Did you mean to be hostile ?

Either way it's the new "nasty party"

"When people disagree with you it's usually better to explain why you disagree instead of labelling their speech."

I did both which surely is best.

"Did you mean to be hostile?"

You mean opposed to the idea what women can't be sexist and black people can't be racist? Yes. Clearly. I don't know how to make that any more obvious.

I think labour supporters should read Animal Farm again - because that is the way it is going

I think it goes - all animals are equal but some are more equal than others

No I wouldn’t mention my ethnicity. You absolutely cannot and would not guess it.

You seem to fail to understand that the definition of racism discussed was developed by people of colour not thick white people who want to prevent progress. It is to prevent white people claiming to share the same experience of discrimination.
You do not get to speak for all people of colour. Using your very simplistic and basic explanation of racism then yes, the policy is racist.
However, I understand racism and sexism as a far more complex issue than a dictionary definition and it is very much there to prevent ‘whitesplaining’, the very thing you imagine is happening on here.

"It is to prevent white people claiming to share the same experience of discrimination."

And why would we want to do that? Ah, because in your world, only men can be sexist, only whites can be racist ...

No one said experiences would be the same but if they're discrimination based on race then it's racism. Again, you are divisive and seem to enjoy notions of 'them and us'.

"Using your very simplistic and basic explanation of racism"

Well, play to your audience.

"However, I understand racism and sexism as a far more complex issue than a dictionary definition"

[tugs forelock] Shit! I hadn't realised how lucky we were to have you here.

Using @TerryPratchett's concise description of Ugandanese politics, I guess there was no racism there there wasn't a white oppressor. How about internalised racism? I guess your basis for this meeting your definition is that 'the white man' can still be blamed.

"You absolutely cannot and would not guess [my ethnicity]"

Is 'patronising arse' an ethnicity?

Apparently, you get mightily reduced membership to the Conservative Party if you've been in the Armed Forces or if you're young. Is the latter ageism?

The Conservatives have a real problem with membership, particularly amongst the young. Seems to me that the the reduced fee for young people is fair enough given a. they're under-represented in current membership b. lots of young people earn less than older people. But i'm sure if you're the type of person who likes to argue that rain isn't wet, you can get some mileage out of it.

However, attacking Labour's membership policy seems to be the way some Conservatives want to go about their recruitment drive. I'd say it's sticky ground to attack another political party on the grounds of egalitarianism given that the UK under this government seems to be a lot more tolerant of inequality at present.

Seems to me that we are being asked to tolerate more and more inequality as the months wheel by: becoming hardened to increased levels of xenophobia and racism, learning to turn a blind eye to people sleeping on the streets, thinking it's OK that you'll wait for hours to get seen in hospital if you don't have the money to go private.

So I think the Conservatives can fuck off with attacking the Labour membership policy.

(Having said all of that, MrsTP and Streetlife - what thoughtful and educative responses.)

The definition of racism is incredibly charged and I wouldn't expect a dictionary to describe it fully

In other words, my politics doesn't agree with the dictionary so therefore it's wrong. SJW's love changing the definition of words to suit their agenda. It's lefty 101.

No, MasterWu.

Firstly, on-line dictionaries are really crap. I have a 2-volume OED, and the depth of definition, with examples of first or early use of words, is far greater than on-line dictionaries. Entries in my 2-volume dictionary will run to a page or more - sometimes, in small print. The on-line version: it'll be an approximate synonym.

There's no comparison. I'll be honest, it drives me a bit mad when my children use an on-line dictionary rather than my copy of the OED, leading me to wimble on about the 'false-promise of the educative potential of the internet'.

The copy of the OED I used at university was multi-volumed and heftier still.

Next point: People spend a lot of time - and words - analysing the changing complexities of racism, discrimination and exclusion in changing societies. The people that undertake this analysis tend to spend a long time learning the tools that will best equip them to make this analysis, in the desire that the subsequent analysis is rigorous and has a strong truth-claim.

Given the precision, the substantiation, the subtle depth of argumentation (in order to achieve precision, clarity, non-miscommunication and communicability) tends to be book-length, it's hardly likely that all of that will make it's way into the one-line, approximate synonym 'definition' offered by an on-line dictionary.

It's not some sort of '101'. It's the opposite.

It's not a completely drawn-out of the air opinion. It's the opposite.

I'm finding the whole attempt to put serious, considered research on a par with the opinions of Jo from Wisconsin really, really wearing. I, for one, haven't had enough of experts.

It is an effort to increase attendance by a specific demographic

What thebewilderness said

And what thecat said

Obviously a one line entry in a dictionary isnt going to sum up something complex

Are discounts offered to people on no/low wages?

Well it just goes to show you can’t guess anything about a poster. It’s interesting that it wasn’t until sexism was mentioned that the verbal abuse and personal insults, began. I could have sworn you were a man.

Must go, but still you are not grasping it is not MY explanation. I picked up on it to argue why it’s not ideal to describe the policy as racist because to call everyone’s experiences of discrimination by the same name has received criticism of being reductive to disadvantaged groups.

But carry on with your playground bullshit. I’m sure someone else will be along to call out your transparency shortly.