West Ham fans caught chanting anti-semitic songs about Tottenham

[fortworthspur]

No one said that. Read it all again.

Celebrate your identity. Just don't call it "white". That isn't an "identity". In your culture (and ours) it's the default status. The default status is not a culture or an identity and claiming it as such is just a form of selective blindness.

Agree with you about the bible of course .

go read his sixth paragraph. and then leave me alone Im too happy after todays game to argue about it.

 

[michaelden]

My cultural heritage is Iranian.

I worked with an Iranian and he described a recipe for cooking chicken, made with yogurt, onions and loads of saffron. He brought some into work and it was delicious, I cannot for the life of me find the recipe. Any chance you or your family have had this dish and know how to make it?

 

[rez9000]

I worked with an Iranian and he described a recipe for cooking chicken, made with yogurt, onions and loads of saffron. He brought some into work and it was delicious, I cannot for the life of me find the recipe. Any chance you or your family have had this dish and know how to make it?

Yeah, it's called tah-chin.

I sort of know how to make it, but I've never actually done so. YT has some vids showing how to make it. Here's a good one:

 

[Spurslove]

What actually shows these pricks in a worse light? Are they unequivocal racists who’ve used the current climate to crawl out from their rock, or are these guys the kind of weak-minded morons who’ll jump on any kind of passing fad?

Both, I'd say.

.

 

[michaelden]

Yeah, it's called tah-chin.

I sort of know how to make it, but I've never actually done so. YT has some vids showing how to make it. Here's a good one:

Thank you!!!

 

[rez9000]

Thank you!!!

You're welcome, bud. Enjoy!

 

[rez9000]

you've certainly got your groupthink memorized well. but at least you acknowledged that the dominant culture is the only one not allowed to celebrate its identity per your handbook. the only thing Id tell you is just because its in your handbook its only really valid to the believers. Kinda like other works of fiction, say the Bible.

And yet more racist cliches. Everything you've mentioned are the usual hackneyed phrases used by racists to justify their beliefs.

The possibility that maybe, just maybe, those who oppose discrimination have come to their own conclusions never seems to enter their minds. No, no, it has to be 'groupthink' (ironically a phrase coined by a man who was fundamentally opposed to colonialism and discrimination - the irony seems lost on the racists, but apparently, we're the ones who don't think!)

I'm going to ask you outright, @fortworthspur : do you believe that any race is superior to another? It's a yes or no answer. Let's see if you have the courage of your convictions, shall we?

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I'm going to ask you outright, @fortworthspur : do you believe that any race is superior to another? It's a yes or no answer. Let's see if you have the courage of your convictions, shall we?

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this. Of course he doesn't "think" one race is superior to another - it's obvious from other interactions on the board. This whole discussion about white privilege is not about what people "think" consciously, it's about living in a white-is-normal bubble where you don't see the assumptions you are making.

That's why I used words like "collective" and "institutional" above. One of hardest things to do in these discussions is to get people to stop personalising racism. As in "but I'm not a racist". It is always made about the individual and about whether they consciously take a position of overt hate and superiority. That's not a helpful definition of racism. It enables people to feel secure because they are not like the people who attend BNP rallies, or in this case, burn crosses and wear white hoods.

By asking a provocative, direct question like the one above, you're encouraging the personalisation of racism. And you're unlikely to provoke a useful discussion - you're going to get a denial.

 

[rez9000]

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this. Of course he doesn't "think" one race is superior to another - it's obvious from other interactions on the board. This whole discussion about white privilege is not about what people "think" consciously, it's about living in a white-is-normal bubble where you don't see the assumptions you are making.

That's why I used words like "collective" and "institutional" above. One of hardest things to do in these discussions is to get people to stop personalising racism. As in "but I'm not a racist". It is always made about the individual and about whether they consciously take a position of overt hate and superiority. That's not a helpful definition of racism. It enables people to feel secure because they are not like the people who attend BNP rallies, or in this case, burn crosses and wear white hoods.

By asking a provocative, direct question like the one above, you're encouraging the personalisation of racism. And you're unlikely to provoke a useful discussion - you're going to get a denial.

I'm going somewhere with it, David.

You yourself have said you confront racism whenever you see it.

Plus, I'd beg forbearance on the grounds that when one is accused of trotting out 'groupthink' and working to a handbook and one's interlocutor not even having the courtesy to tag one into a post one is mentioned in, then I can ask direct questions if I so choose.

Additionally, all of this is the same extraneous bullshit I mentioned earlier. Anyone who finds merit in the arguments that @fortworthspur has mentioned should be shown the conclusion of those arguments. You being Jewish (I believe) know better than most what the thin end of the wedge can lead to...

Essentially, it boils down to you debate your way, I'll debate mine, yes? Ultimately, I actually doubt that I'll even get a response. The defensiveness of responses demonstrate to me that, like the racist philosophy as a whole, the assertions are inherently indefensible. The tone of the posts has become defensive and accusatory, indicating a loss of temper. Classic behaviour when one has their beliefs challenged in a way they can't defend. The usual response is to evade rather than examine the validity of one's beliefs. Anything to be able to keep believing what they want rather than admit when one is wrong.

 

[ohtottenham!]

I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this. Of course he doesn't "think" one race is superior to another - it's obvious from other interactions on the board. This whole discussion about white privilege is not about what people "think" consciously, it's about living in a white-is-normal bubble where you don't see the assumptions you are making.

That's why I used words like "collective" and "institutional" above. One of hardest things to do in these discussions is to get people to stop personalising racism. As in "but I'm not a racist". It is always made about the individual and about whether they consciously take a position of overt hate and superiority. That's not a helpful definition of racism. It enables people to feel secure because they are not like the people who attend BNP rallies, or in this case, burn crosses and wear white hoods.

By asking a provocative, direct question like the one above, you're encouraging the personalisation of racism. And you're unlikely to provoke a useful discussion - you're going to get a denial.

I'm going somewhere with it, David.

You yourself have said you confront racism whenever you see it.

Plus, I'd beg forbearance on the grounds that when one is accused of trotting out 'groupthink' and working to a handbook and one's interlocutor not even having the courtesy to tag one into a post one is mentioned in, then I can ask direct questions if I so choose.

Additionally, all of this is the same extraneous bullshit I mentioned earlier. Anyone who finds merit in the arguments that @fortworthspur has mentioned should be shown the conclusion of those arguments. You being Jewish (I believe) know better than most what the thin end of the wedge can lead to...

Essentially, it boils down to you debate your way, I'll debate mine, yes? Ultimately, I actually doubt that I'll even get a response. The defensiveness of responses demonstrate to me that, like the racist philosophy as a whole, the assertions are inherently indefensible. The tone of the posts has become defensive and accusatory, indicating a loss of temper. Classic behaviour when one has their beliefs challenged in a way they can't defend. The usual response is to evade rather than examine the validity of one's beliefs. Anything to be able to keep believing what they want rather than admit when one is wrong.

Well, bottom line is, @fortworthspur is not engaging in the discussion in terms of expanding on his original question, or in providing any sign of meaningfully processing the many responses he’s been given to his questions.

There’s very little coming from his corner in terms of depth. There is his “that’s an emotional response, not an intellectual one”, or “that’s groupthink” etc., He makes declarative statements without bothering to explain or clarify them. Could be a few reasons for this, including fear about opening up and being judged, which is my guess.

Begs the question as to why he’s initiating and prolonging a debate in which he’s shown no real desire with which to meaningfully engage. Until he does, file under “a waste of time.”