comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
social divide in the UK, is based on social class (or perceived class) and connections, far more than race
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This would suggest that you think race is a factor, but less so than “class”?
I think the average person on the street really doesn't have a good grasp of correlation vs causation (and the human brain is wired to muddle the two), and these kind of debates really benefit from giving more weight to experts and scientists who have taken the time to study these topics in-depth and at-length.
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 27 minutes ago
wouldnt structurally racist mean theres laws in place that only go against certain races? not general racism within the population?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it could include stuff like how easy it is to get a job or a promotion and stuff like that.
So is this report like the armageddon of that topic or what? Is it like the final word?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the problem - if it was a Labour report you'd probably see it being organised and written by academics who believe structural racism is ubiquitous. Lo and behold they would find in their report structural racism is ubiquitous.
Conservatives much more likely, as they have done, to pick people to undertake reports who believe inequality is more to do with family structure and class. Heavens above, that's what they find in their report.
I happen to agree with the latter report than the former, but the point is governments will pick people to support their outlooks on an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m inclined to agree that you could argue similarly for a Labour originated report. You’ll appreciate that I’m less likely to agree in terms of the former versus the latter though
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 11 minutes ago
I think the average person on the street really doesn't have a good grasp of correlation vs causation (and the human brain is wired to muddle the two), and these kind of debates really benefit from giving more weight to experts and scientists who have taken the time to study these topics in-depth and at-length.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or giving more weight to actuaries
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 49 minutes ago
From what I understand the report is suggesting class and family structure are more significant drivers of inequality than race. It says Britain is not post-racial, but there is also insufficient evidence to suggest the country is structurally racist.
That is really the only particularly contentious part as progressives are seemingly he'll bent on defining and determining that the UK is structurally racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't agree more, Britain is structurally classist, always has been. It doesn't like poor people.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What known biases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biases in the sense that the views of these individuals on “institutional racism” were well established, so in this instance there’s a significant risk of confirmation bias, which again is perhaps what people are commenting on in the absence of the detail of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you apply this to Runnymede reports?
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the problem - if it was a Labour report you'd probably see it being organised and written by academics who believe structural racism is ubiquitous. Lo and behold they would find in their report structural racism is ubiquitous.
Conservatives much more likely, as they have done, to pick people to undertake reports who believe inequality is more to do with family structure and class. Heavens above, that's what they find in their report.
I happen to agree with the latter report than the former, but the point is governments will pick people to support their outlooks on an issue.
-----
Yeah, I think some member(s) of that panel are on record as denying that particular aspect of racism even before being appointed to the panel. I think people knew or could have guessed with a decent amount of accuracy what this report would say.
I don't fundamentally want to disagree with it though because class disparity is something I see as a big problem in of itself, not just here but worldwide.
Class disparity overcomes racism in that it is absolutely everywhere. Even in places where the population is homogeneous (and therefore little to no racism exists) class is still a major issue. Efforts to try to address that should certainly not be curtailed in any way.
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So are you a wondering wanderer or a wandering wonderer?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to politically weaponise this though.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What known biases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biases in the sense that the views of these individuals on “institutional racism” were well established, so in this instance there’s a significant risk of confirmation bias, which again is perhaps what people are commenting on in the absence of the detail of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you apply this to Runnymede reports?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I’ve addressed that above.
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Dorn compared to George Floyd is another key example of coverage difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Timpa is the best example as it’s almost in identical in nature.
Daniel Shaver
There’s so many.
The worst bit of the Anwar case was the mayor tweeting afterwards institutions on how not to get carjacked.
Can you imagine if a Republican Mayor came out straight after a black man was shot to death explaining how to not get shot to death.
It’s such a twisted and distorted narrative, drives me mad.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What known biases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biases in the sense that the views of these individuals on “institutional racism” were well established, so in this instance there’s a significant risk of confirmation bias, which again is perhaps what people are commenting on in the absence of the detail of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you apply this to Runnymede reports?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I’ve addressed that above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the nee report released yet do we know?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 12 seconds ago
Our govt haven't gone and done something divisive again have they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No Runnymede did and our government are finally countering the false narrative.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
My main criticism of probably every report I’ve read trying to demonstrate some kind of systemic racism whether it’s over here or in the US is that the disparities are the same or sometimes larger between ethnic sub-groups which immediately and concretely dispels the notion that these disparities are caused by systemic racism.
Bangladeshi vs Indian
African vs Caribbean
Once you get data broken down involving sub groups - the picture becomes much clearer. It’s shame we rarely see that picture.
Headline: White vs BAME
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Ok white people go sell your nonsense and make millions out of it.
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 2 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah Runnymede are laughable
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 55 seconds ago
Runnymede has nothing to do with this report I hope
Would hate to have a govt that sets up a report like this simply to counter a previous independent one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they don’t. Runnymede’s goal is to demonstrate systemic racism. They just do a poor job of it.
Remember you were pushing their info regarding covid a few months back until I broke down the data properly and showed the disparities between sub groups. You said you would come back to it in the morning but never did. I let you off because I’m a nice guy and assumed that I had made my point clear.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 521 of 4838
522 | 523 | 524 | 525 | 526
posted on 31/3/21
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 3 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
social divide in the UK, is based on social class (or perceived class) and connections, far more than race
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This would suggest that you think race is a factor, but less so than “class”?
posted on 31/3/21
I think the average person on the street really doesn't have a good grasp of correlation vs causation (and the human brain is wired to muddle the two), and these kind of debates really benefit from giving more weight to experts and scientists who have taken the time to study these topics in-depth and at-length.
posted on 31/3/21
comment by Taki Minamino (U20650)
posted 27 minutes ago
wouldnt structurally racist mean theres laws in place that only go against certain races? not general racism within the population?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it could include stuff like how easy it is to get a job or a promotion and stuff like that.
posted on 31/3/21
So is this report like the armageddon of that topic or what? Is it like the final word?
posted on 31/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/3/21
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the problem - if it was a Labour report you'd probably see it being organised and written by academics who believe structural racism is ubiquitous. Lo and behold they would find in their report structural racism is ubiquitous.
Conservatives much more likely, as they have done, to pick people to undertake reports who believe inequality is more to do with family structure and class. Heavens above, that's what they find in their report.
I happen to agree with the latter report than the former, but the point is governments will pick people to support their outlooks on an issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m inclined to agree that you could argue similarly for a Labour originated report. You’ll appreciate that I’m less likely to agree in terms of the former versus the latter though
posted on 31/3/21
comment by renoog (U4449)
posted 11 minutes ago
I think the average person on the street really doesn't have a good grasp of correlation vs causation (and the human brain is wired to muddle the two), and these kind of debates really benefit from giving more weight to experts and scientists who have taken the time to study these topics in-depth and at-length.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or giving more weight to actuaries
posted on 31/3/21
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 49 minutes ago
From what I understand the report is suggesting class and family structure are more significant drivers of inequality than race. It says Britain is not post-racial, but there is also insufficient evidence to suggest the country is structurally racist.
That is really the only particularly contentious part as progressives are seemingly he'll bent on defining and determining that the UK is structurally racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't agree more, Britain is structurally classist, always has been. It doesn't like poor people.
posted on 31/3/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What known biases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biases in the sense that the views of these individuals on “institutional racism” were well established, so in this instance there’s a significant risk of confirmation bias, which again is perhaps what people are commenting on in the absence of the detail of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you apply this to Runnymede reports?
posted on 31/3/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 4 minutes ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the problem - if it was a Labour report you'd probably see it being organised and written by academics who believe structural racism is ubiquitous. Lo and behold they would find in their report structural racism is ubiquitous.
Conservatives much more likely, as they have done, to pick people to undertake reports who believe inequality is more to do with family structure and class. Heavens above, that's what they find in their report.
I happen to agree with the latter report than the former, but the point is governments will pick people to support their outlooks on an issue.
-----
Yeah, I think some member(s) of that panel are on record as denying that particular aspect of racism even before being appointed to the panel. I think people knew or could have guessed with a decent amount of accuracy what this report would say.
I don't fundamentally want to disagree with it though because class disparity is something I see as a big problem in of itself, not just here but worldwide.
Class disparity overcomes racism in that it is absolutely everywhere. Even in places where the population is homogeneous (and therefore little to no racism exists) class is still a major issue. Efforts to try to address that should certainly not be curtailed in any way.
posted on 31/3/21
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
posted on 31/3/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So are you a wondering wanderer or a wandering wonderer?
posted on 31/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/3/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 minutes ago
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to politically weaponise this though.
posted on 31/3/21
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What known biases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biases in the sense that the views of these individuals on “institutional racism” were well established, so in this instance there’s a significant risk of confirmation bias, which again is perhaps what people are commenting on in the absence of the detail of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you apply this to Runnymede reports?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I’ve addressed that above.
posted on 31/3/21
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 3 minutes ago
I wonder if we will be hearing about Mohammed Anwar in a week or so and whether that tragedy will remain a national headline for months and months. If not, I do wonder why not.
I wonder a lot, especially when I go wander.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Dorn compared to George Floyd is another key example of coverage difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Timpa is the best example as it’s almost in identical in nature.
Daniel Shaver
There’s so many.
The worst bit of the Anwar case was the mayor tweeting afterwards institutions on how not to get carjacked.
Can you imagine if a Republican Mayor came out straight after a black man was shot to death explaining how to not get shot to death.
It’s such a twisted and distorted narrative, drives me mad.
posted on 31/3/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 1 minute ago
It could also be that known biases or views of those composing the report are what politicians are commenting on, rather than the substance. Highlights perhaps one of the challenges with employing people to oversee a study who already have strongly held and publicly shared views on the topic of the study.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What known biases?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biases in the sense that the views of these individuals on “institutional racism” were well established, so in this instance there’s a significant risk of confirmation bias, which again is perhaps what people are commenting on in the absence of the detail of the report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I assume that you apply this to Runnymede reports?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I’ve addressed that above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the nee report released yet do we know?
posted on 31/3/21
*new
posted on 31/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/3/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 12 seconds ago
Our govt haven't gone and done something divisive again have they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No Runnymede did and our government are finally countering the false narrative.
posted on 31/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/3/21
My main criticism of probably every report I’ve read trying to demonstrate some kind of systemic racism whether it’s over here or in the US is that the disparities are the same or sometimes larger between ethnic sub-groups which immediately and concretely dispels the notion that these disparities are caused by systemic racism.
Bangladeshi vs Indian
African vs Caribbean
Once you get data broken down involving sub groups - the picture becomes much clearer. It’s shame we rarely see that picture.
Headline: White vs BAME
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Ok white people go sell your nonsense and make millions out of it.
posted on 31/3/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 2 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah Runnymede are laughable
posted on 31/3/21
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/3/21
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 55 seconds ago
Runnymede has nothing to do with this report I hope
Would hate to have a govt that sets up a report like this simply to counter a previous independent one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they don’t. Runnymede’s goal is to demonstrate systemic racism. They just do a poor job of it.
Remember you were pushing their info regarding covid a few months back until I broke down the data properly and showed the disparities between sub groups. You said you would come back to it in the morning but never did. I let you off because I’m a nice guy and assumed that I had made my point clear.
Page 521 of 4838
522 | 523 | 524 | 525 | 526