Racism Report

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

53 minutes ago, Rest3 said:

I agree with where you are coming from. I don't have the answers for you but I think in part this is why it's so complicated. its not true to say white boys are not being left behind. https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54278727

"But for "male, white British, free school meals" pupils, the figure is 13% - even lower than the year before, and to put it in context, it's below "looked after" children who have been in council care and far below those speaking English as a second language."

I think we need to address deprivation at source before using statistics such as those you took above as it can paint a misleading picture. 

To add a sixth question to the five you posed above...

6) "The number of males searched in London was 227,470 according to this research, and the number of females was 16,078." - So the percentages are 93% vs 7%. Is the answer similar to the questions posed above - where are the calls of sexism?

 

 

Hi Rest.

I think most on here agree with KIO and yourself - nobody seriously doubts there is racism - institutional, societal or otherwise (just how many black football managers or judges can you think off ?) in society although it is improving over the years. Yes there are many other issues too.

All the issues really relate to equality of opportunity as opposed to equality of outcome. Racism (and sexism) however puts some groups at an intrinsic disadvantage before we even start to address the other issues such as poverty.

What I would however note is that certain groups of all races seem to to want to accept or champion their lot - the so called white working class poor many of which seem to have chip on their shoulder about education (and hence why many remain stuck as white working class poor) and equally some immigrant groups that won't 'integrate'. What we need to ensure is that those that want to rise above their beginnings have no impediments to their dreams. 

 

 

 

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Rest3 said:

I agree with where you are coming from. I don't have the answers for you but I think in part this is why it's so complicated. its not true to say white boys are not being left behind. https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54278727

"But for "male, white British, free school meals" pupils, the figure is 13% - even lower than the year before, and to put it in context, it's below "looked after" children who have been in council care and far below those speaking English as a second language."

I think we need to address deprivation at source before using statistics such as those you took above as it can paint a misleading picture. 

To add a sixth question to the five you posed above...

6) "The number of males searched in London was 227,470 according to this research, and the number of females was 16,078." - So the percentages are 93% vs 7%. Is the answer similar to the questions posed above - where are the calls of sexism?

 

 

Just to add some footnotes to YF's post with which I agree. I don't think that anyone on here who is angry with the farcical collapse of this deeply flawed report have denied that there are many inequalities in society that need addressing. We should be aggrieved by the inequalities faced by white working class boys as much as we are by those faced by people of colour. Some of those inequalities will indeed be shared in common, such as poverty. However the anger caused by this report is its denial that institutionalised racism is also a cause of inequality despite the evidence of decades of research from academics and experts from many fields (indeed many of those experts were misleadingly cited in the report and have subsequently trashed the reports claims).

In response to your claim that statistics are misleading I have to disagree. Raw statistics are either true or false, it is only when they are subjected to interpretation that they can be used in a misleading way. One of my favourite quotes regarding statistics is attributed to Andrew Lang:

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination"

One should always be aware of the motives lying behind a particular interpretation of any set of stats. Any interpretation of a particlar statistic must be subject to appropriate critical  scrutiny to determine its validity. So if we take your example stat in your sixth point above it probably wouldn't take very long to rule out sexism as an issue given the further evidence we have about violent crime being overwhelmingly caused by males.

 

[horsefly 4,301]

Yes! you guessed it, yet another academic  has claimed the report has grossly misreperesented his views:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/race-report-academic-accuses-the-commission-of-using-his-work-to-lend-review-academic-respectability/ar-BB1fm4gJ?ocid=msedgntp

Dr Matteo Tiratelli, a teaching fellow at University College London, was angry when he saw his paper on whether stop and search deterred crime, published in 2018 in The British Journal of Criminology, had been cited by the Commission.

The reference about the police powers, which disproportionately affect black people, reads: “One study found a 10 per cent increase in stop and search during a given month decreased recorded drug offences by 1.85 per cent suggesting that drug crime patterns change when stop and search is taking place in an area.”

But Dr Tiratelli told i he was “shocked” to see his “work being misused in this way”.

“It seems to have been quoted solely to lend the report the appearance of academic respectability, because anyone who’s read the research would see that it in fact makes the opposite point to what is claimed in the Sewell Report – which is that there is very little evidence to suggest that stop and search is an effective way of reducing crime rates.”

He said his work had been mischaracterised and that he hoped the public would “see through” the report.

Frankly, this report amounts to a fraud on the UK tax-payer and a colossal failure of those whose interests it is supposed to represent. It's one thing to use the opportunity of a publicly funded commission to put forward controversial and highly disputable views, it's another level of corruption to purposely cite reputable academics and experts in order to defend those views knowing that those individuals utterly reject those claims. 

Edited April 7, 2021 by horsefly

[Herman 9,779]

Well, FMOB!! Another dodgy report incoming.

 

[horsefly 4,301]

Perhaps Queen's song "Another One Bites the Dust" should become compulsory listening to accompany this thread. Yes you guessed right again, another expert cited in the report has criticized its unfounded and misleading conclusions:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/uk-public-health-expert-criticises-no-10-race-report-shortcomings/ar-BB1foAWf?ocid=msedgntp

UK public health expert criticises No 10 race report ‘shortcomings’

 

An inquiry into racial disparities used outdated references and notably underplayed the impact of structural racism in health outcomes, the UK’s leading authority on public health has said, in a new blow to the credibility of the much-criticised report. 

 

 Sir Michael Marmot said the report by the Downing Street-appointed Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (Cred) had cited his 2010 study, but did not consider the 2020 update, or a subsequent study he led on structural factors behind varying Covid outcomes.

Marmot also criticised the report’s contention that health inequalities should be considered an outcome of factors such as deprivation and poor housing, rather than ethnicity. Such social conditions “are themselves the result of longstanding inequalities and structural racism”, he noted.

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2021 by horsefly

[Mr.Carrow 376]

On 01/04/2021 at 18:42, Christoph Stiepermann said:

All prejudice in this country is based on social status and class. There is no institutional racism in terms of business except for at the very top which is, has and always will be an old boys club. It just so happens that due to starting off as first generation immigrants or living in economically deprived areas that many minority families find themselves working class so they face prejudice from the police/ employers/ the government etc. 

This is the basis for why people think racism is still an issue in society but in reality poor, working class white people face the same problems in life. This is an inconvenient truth for many people, people who are doing well for themselves or got a good break in life don't like to feel like they're part of the problem so when they see oppressed people they look for easy, simple answers like it must be racism or something when in reality the problem is classism. 

 

You're an employer. who are you going to hire? The lower class, chavvy white guy or the well spoken, middle class BAME guy who turns up to an interview well dressed? You're a Police officer on duty, you're looking out for people to search, do you look for people wearing tracksuits, who look chavvy or people well dressed and groomed who may be black or another ethnic group?

 

I fully expect to get criticized for this post because what I've said is really not a popular, trendy thing to say. It's much easier and simpler to think that the government and police forces are all racist (some of them are of course) people nowdays always look for easy answers and when a study like this doesn't confirm their black and white, simplistic view of the world they lash out and say the it must be wrong. 

 

As a Lefty I can assure you that this stuff has come almost entirely from the middle and upper classes. Paint yourself as a righteous saviour of "oppressed groups" whilst subtly pushing aside any idea that your class might actually be the real problem plus of course any nasty ideas such as people like you having to pay higher taxes. What's not to like? The Woke metropolitan left is the new righteous and condescending bourgeoisie. As usual, the working class don't really have a voice or a way to fight back so they rebel, hence Brexit and the fall of the red wall. Woke has basically been a political heist which has worked perfectly for the ruling classes (see the rise of Woke corporatism for example).

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 02/04/2021 at 22:19, sonyc said:

RTB Blunt? Never! I won't hear it.

You could be right though. I have come to count any successes in the outcomes for individuals. I can't go into detail of course. (And I do agree about your comment on white working class lads in a previous response).

My idealism that I could be part of changing the world as a youngster has never left me though RTB. Of course I have realised I can not ...it's far too big. 

Perhaps I'm a fool and will accept such a chide if you were to judge it so but I've never stopped trying. And I reckon that's been part of a reason for living for me (and explains my politics). Perhaps a bit deep eh but can only try and be up front. I have nothing to try and defend.

A bloke told me when I was about 30  that he had a maxim...that if you weren't a socialist in your twenties you had no heart (Churchill?)... But if you were still one in your thirties you had no brains. It was a very sharp comment aimed at me. He was probably right! I'm not the brightest but I do care about folk and want the best for everyone. I don't think that's such a bad thing is it?

On the question of institutions, they are often weird structures. Most are completely dysfunctional. Folk do well to survive them. 

You try your best and are sincere, so you are way ahead of many. Hope I wasn't too rude. You are right about institutions, they do seem to veer off on a tangent of their own over a period of time.

[Herman 9,779]

5 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

As a Lefty I can assure you that this stuff has come almost entirely from the middle and upper classes. Paint yourself as a righteous saviour of "oppressed groups" whilst subtly pushing aside any idea that your class might actually be the real problem plus of course any nasty ideas such as people like you having to pay higher taxes. What's not to like? The Woke metropolitan left is the new righteous and condescending bourgeoisie. As usual, the working class don't really have a voice or a way to fight back so they rebel, hence Brexit and the fall of the red wall. Woke has basically been a political heist which has worked perfectly for the ruling classes (see the rise of Woke corporatism for example).

What a load of pish. All this "woke" nonsense has come from the far right/Blukip to denigrate anyone that has any concern about the way the country has and is being governed. Even "Lefty" is a right wing catch all to divide the people and stick everyone into groups. Them and us.

Against racism? Must be "woke" or actually want to live in a country where people do get an equal go.

Pro Brexit? Really concerned about the working class or being used by nefarious politicians to get some ridiculous political idea through.

There is no woke. You're being mugged off again.

[horsefly 4,301]

7 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

As a Lefty I can assure you that this stuff has come almost entirely from the middle and upper classes. Paint yourself as a righteous saviour of "oppressed groups" whilst subtly pushing aside any idea that your class might actually be the real problem plus of course any nasty ideas such as people like you having to pay higher taxes. What's not to like? The Woke metropolitan left is the new righteous and condescending bourgeoisie. As usual, the working class don't really have a voice or a way to fight back so they rebel, hence Brexit and the fall of the red wall. Woke has basically been a political heist which has worked perfectly for the ruling classes (see the rise of Woke corporatism for example).

Not a very convincing "Lefty" are you? This could be straight out of the Daily Mail or Express. Use of meaningless pejorative slurs like "The Woke metropolitan left" is a typical right-wing ad hominem tactic to avoid addressing the actual issues and arguments raised. The idea that "this stuff" is invalidated because it comes "almost entirely from the middle and upper classes" is a non-sequitur of mind-numbing proportions. Since when did the truth or validity of an argument depend upon the class of the person making it? No doubt all the academics and professional experts commenting on these issues will by default lazily fall into your category of "middle-class" (which would include me, despite the fact that I was in receipt of free school meals for the majority of my schooling). So feel free to explain why the extensive peer-reviewed research they have produced is all made false or irrelevant by the "fact" that they are, according to you, "middle class" (incidently, I've yet to meet more than two or three academics in the entirety of my career who might justifiably be labelled "upper class").

By-the-way, when it comes to the putative, "righteous and condescending bourgeoisie" you do a fine job giving an example of such an attitude with your own claim that, "As usual, the working class don't really have a voice or a way to fight back so they rebel, hence Brexit and the fall of the red wall".

You would be better served addressing the actual arguments put forward by the academics, professional, and experts attacking the deep flaws in this report rather than engaging in the pathetically inadequate tabloid trash talk that attempts to deflect from the very real inequalities affecting the lives of so many of our fellow citizens.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by horsefly

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

I must admit to some prejudice.

Anybody who uses the word 'woke' to label people I naturally pigeon hole as somebody with a chip on their shoulder as to education or anybody who tries to see the larger picture or has pulled themselves up. It's a self labelling identifying tribal word. I must try and see past this simplification.

By the way although I'm far from working class now -  as a young child I still remember baths in a galvanized steel tub that hung up in the coal shed next to the outside privy when not in use in front of the open fire. I don't need telling what working class means or is.

[sonyc 5,526]

About a year ago through ancestry research I found a second cousin (she is strongly a Tory) and she recently sent me this little video to give me a lockdown smile. Since folk are talking about "woke" it reminded me of this very short BBC video.

[horsefly 4,301]

53 minutes ago, sonyc said:

About a year ago through ancestry research I found a second cousin (she is strongly a Tory) and she recently sent me this little video to give me a lockdown smile. Since folk are talking about "woke" it reminded me of this very short BBC video.

Excellent! had me laughing out loud. Now, I'm just waiting for someone to claim that it is an actual BBC training video.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

6 hours ago, Herman said:

What a load of pish. All this "woke" nonsense has come from the far right/Blukip to denigrate anyone that has any concern about the way the country has and is being governed. Even "Lefty" is a right wing catch all to divide the people and stick everyone into groups. Them and us.

Against racism? Must be "woke" or actually want to live in a country where people do get an equal go.

Pro Brexit? Really concerned about the working class or being used by nefarious politicians to get some ridiculous political idea through.

There is no woke. You're being mugged off again.

The World Socialist Website, Zizek, Chomsky Stephen Fry and many others on the Left have come out squarely against Woke. People like you are useful idiots doing the ruling classes job for them. Starmer is in the position whereby if he backs Woke her loses 50% of the Left, if he doesn't he loses the other 50%. No wonder he's so quiet...

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Try this from a Lefty who predictably enough gets constantly attacked by a mob of true believers for trying to speak some sense: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/some-principles-and-observations?fbclid=IwAR3j6Lm-v4rzlmbi4QNDYtbVABf07x53pO6fEEmRsyDw0pixKZO_MEYbMjw

[Herman 9,779]

24 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

The World Socialist Website, Zizek, Chomsky Stephen Fry and many others on the Left have come out squarely against Woke. People like you are useful idiots doing the ruling classes job for them. Starmer is in the position whereby if he backs Woke her loses 50% of the Left, if he doesn't he loses the other 50%. No wonder he's so quiet...

The ruling classes?? Who do you think is in charge of this country? 

[Herman 9,779]

Putting it simply, I am a middle aged white bloke from a very white town. I can't pretend to know what is happening in black, Asian, etc communities but If I repeatedly hear that a community is having troubles, and the complaints are coming from people within that community, I would like to know what the problem is, how big the problem is, how it can be fixed and what can I do personally. 

What I don't want to hear is people pretending the problem doesn't exist or coming out with some meaningless phrases like woke or virtue signalling. It's bollox and doesn't get anywhere near addressing anything to do with the subject at hand. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

6 minutes ago, Herman said:

Putting it simply, I am a middle aged white bloke from a very white town. I can't pretend to know what is happening in black, Asian, etc communities but If I repeatedly hear that a community is having troubles, and the complaints are coming from people within that community, I would like to know what the problem is, how big the problem is, how it can be fixed and what can I do personally. 

What I don't want to hear is people pretending the problem doesn't exist or coming out with some meaningless phrases like woke or virtue signalling. It's bollox and doesn't get anywhere near addressing anything to do with the subject at hand. 

Well then you have to contend with the fact that people from those communities often have different viewpoints and disagree about many things. It's almost as if real "diversity" is more than skin deep, but that's crazy talk. The abuse Sewell, Mirza etc get would be called what it is- racism- if it wasn't so readily acceptable within the social justice quasi religion that some people are "the wrong kind of black". You also have to accept that much of the evidence is contradictory- see education and some ethnic groups doing better than whites in income. This is simply ignored by the neo-racists because it doesn't fit in with their simplistic totalising narrative.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

So, this report was sent to the media using a rarely used method that is far more oblique than usual, some of those championed as "shareholders" have come out and said they weren't, and plenty of experts whose research is cited in it have gone and said their research has been misunderstood, misquoted, or taken out of context.

Yeah, I think this increasingly discredited junk report is a dead cat on the table to divert attention from overly stringent laws preventing protest.

[horsefly 4,301]

2 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

The World Socialist Website, Zizek, Chomsky Stephen Fry and many others on the Left have come out squarely against Woke. People like you are useful idiots doing the ruling classes job for them. Starmer is in the position whereby if he backs Woke her loses 50% of the Left, if he doesn't he loses the other 50%. No wonder he's so quiet...

Utter tosh! You have not explained or identified what "woke" is specifically supposed to mean. No surprise there because it is a pathetic and puposely vague term used by people like you who seem very happy to do the bidding of right-wing mouthpieces such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express (among many others). How many times do you need to hear Tories using the term "woke" before you realise that the "ruling classes" are happily using it to distract from the very real issues of inequality that affect the daily lives of many of our fellow citizens.

Your claim that, "Stephen Fry and many others on the Left have come out squarely against Woke" is an intentional misrepresentation of his views as can be easily demonstrated. Here is an extract from the Daily Express (from where I suspect this tosh is drawn😞https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1368035/Stephen-fry-cambridge-university-woke-labour-party-paul-embery-liberalism-left-wing-spt

Stephen Fry dismantles 'muddled' woke Cambridge University policy in rant against tyranny

STEPHEN FRY hit out at the "muddled" free-speech policy floated at Cambridge University that stifles opposing viewpoints.

It really doesn't take an intellectual genius to spot that what the Express claims as Stephen Fry dismantling "muddled woke" policy is not described by Fry like that at all. He attacked what he described as a "muddled free speech" policy, absolutely no mention of the word "woke" at all. The fact that you are happy to misrepresent Fry's views as coming out "squarely against woke" means you are either happy to join in the Express' campaign to object to any progressive policies concerning equality, or you are very easily fooled into accepting their misrepresentations of what was actually being claimed. As it happens I fully support Fry's views on "free speech", but like him I'm not stupid enough to describe my objections to restrictions on free speech with the pathetically vague and pejorative term "woke". I suggest you read what he actually says in his speech instead of relying on a right-wing attempt to misrepresent his very eloquent argument.

The "useful idiot" here is the individual succoured into using the term "woke". This is nothing more than a vague and pejorative term invented by the right (just like "political correctness") with the sole purpose of negating the need to address claims and arguments with genuine critical rigour and analysis. It is at best lazy and disingenous to refuse to analyse the claims that are actually being made by people by dismissing them as "woke". At worst it is a purposeful attempt to retain the status quo of an intollerant and unequal society.

Edited April 8, 2021 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,301]

1 hour ago, Mr.Carrow said:

This is simply ignored by the neo-racists because it doesn't fit in with their simplistic totalising narrative.

Says the man who refuses to engage with any of the specific arguments, evidence, or claims being made, but happily subsumes all these views under the "totalising narrative" of "Woke". Wow! such naivety.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

I'm always amused when the terms "SJW" or "woke" are bandied around. It's just a cheap gaslighting tactic.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

37 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Utter tosh! You have not explained or identified what "woke" is specifically supposed to mean. No surprise there because it is a pathetic and puposely vague term used by people like you who seem very happy to do the bidding of right-wing mouthpieces such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express (among many others). How many times do you need to hear Tories using the term "woke" before you realise that the "ruling classes" are happily using it to distract from the very real issues of inequality that affect the daily lives of many of our fellow citizens.

Your claim that, "Stephen Fry and many others on the Left have come out squarely against Woke" is an intentional misrepresentation of his views as can be easily demonstrated. Here is an extract from the Daily Express (from where I suspect this tosh is drawn😞https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1368035/Stephen-fry-cambridge-university-woke-labour-party-paul-embery-liberalism-left-wing-spt

Stephen Fry dismantles 'muddled' woke Cambridge University policy in rant against tyranny

STEPHEN FRY hit out at the "muddled" free-speech policy floated at Cambridge University that stifles opposing viewpoints.

It really doesn't take an intellectual genius to spot that what the Express claims as Stephen Fry dismantling "muddled woke" policy is not described by Fry like that at all. He attacked what he described as a "muddled free speech" policy, absolutely no mention of the word "woke" at all. The fact that you are happy to misrepresent Fry's views as coming out "squarely against woke" means you are either happy to join in the Express' campaign to object to any progressive policies concerning equality, or you are very easily fooled into accepting their misrepresentations of what was actually being claimed. As it happens I fully support Fry's views on "free speech", but like him I'm not stupid enough to describe my objections to restrictions on free speech with the pathetically vague and pejorative term "woke". I suggest you read what he actually says in his speech instead of relying on a right-wing attempt to misrepresent his very eloquent argument.

The "useful idiot" here is the individual succoured into using the term "woke". This is nothing more than a vague and pejorative term invented by the right (just like "political correctness") with the sole purpose of negating the need to address claims and arguments with genuine critical rigour and analysis. It is at best lazy and disingenous to refuse to analyse the claims that are actually being made by people by dismissing them as "woke". At worst it is a purposeful attempt to retain the status quo of an intollerant and unequal society.

If you don't know what Woke means you are clearly stuck in an echo chamber. Stephen Fry was on a panel with Jordan Peterson speaking out against political correctness (the forerunner to Woke before it was taken to the next ideological level).

[Mr.Carrow 376]

This very brave and intellectually honest woman was a leader of a BLM chapter until she started questioning the neo-racist narrative. Suffice to say she's suffered for daring to question the ideologues: 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Mr.Carrow

[horsefly 4,301]

Just now, Mr.Carrow said:

If you don't know what Woke means you are clearly stuck in an echo chamber. Stephen Fry was on a panel with Jordan Peterson speaking out against political correctness (the forerunner to Woke before it was taken to the next ideological level).

I know exactly what you and other right-wing demagogues are attempting to do by branding everything as "Woke", but that doesn't mean the term has any clear meaning at all beyond its use to cancel actual discussion of the issues being raised.

However, do feel free to tell us exactly what "woke" means, and why you think it is sufficient simply to brand everything you disagree with as "woke" rather than criticise the actual arguments that have been put forward.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Just now, horsefly said:

I know exactly what you and other right-wing demagogues are attempting to do by branding everything as "Woke", but that doesn't mean the term has any clear meaning at all beyond its use to cancel actual discussion of the issues being raised.

However, do feel free to tell us exactly what "woke" means, and why you think it is sufficient simply to brand everything you disagree with as "woke" rather than criticise the actual arguments that have been put forward.

A bit like you calling anybody who accepts that these issues are incredibly complicated and tries to add some nuance right wing, racist, misogynist etc? Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot hey? What a pompous, vacuous, self righteous hypocrite you are.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I know exactly what you and other right-wing demagogues are attempting to do by branding everything as "Woke", but that doesn't mean the term has any clear meaning at all beyond its use to cancel actual discussion of the issues being raised.

However, do feel free to tell us exactly what "woke" means, and why you think it is sufficient simply to brand everything you disagree with as "woke" rather than criticise the actual arguments that have been put forward.

I'll give you a definition of Woke when you give me a definition of structural/institutionalised racism and some definitive proof that it exists.

[horsefly 4,301]

Just now, Mr.Carrow said:

A bit like you calling anybody who accepts that these issues are incredibly complicated and tries to add some nuance right wing, racist, misogynist etc? Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot hey? What a pompous, vacuous, self righteous hypocrite you are.

So absolutely no attempt to explain what "woke" is supposed to mean because you know full well that it doesn't have any genuine meaning. You are merely using it like your right-wing comrades to attack individuals you disagree with in a purely pejoritive ad hominem assault. Absolutely pathetic! No doubt you don't even have the wit to note the absurd contradictions in what you have just said. The first thing that anybody who accepts these issues are incredibly complicated and nuanced would do is avoid using a pejorative blanket term like "woke" to avoid analysing those complicated and nuanced issues. Your claims are utterly foolish.

[horsefly 4,301]

Have just spent the last hour and more watching the George Floyd murder trial live on Court TV (channel 89 on freeview). Respiratory expert Dr Martin Tobin has been giving evidence. It has been almost too awful to watch, but his calm expertise has been authorative and compelling. I have to admit that this has made me very angry as well as revolted; perhaps if some of the contributors on this thread bothered to attend to the sort of realities being played out here they might be less flippant in tossing off claims to racism as mere "wokery". 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

58 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So absolutely no attempt to explain what "woke" is supposed to mean because you know full well that it doesn't have any genuine meaning. You are merely using it like your right-wing comrades to attack individuals you disagree with in a purely pejoritive ad hominem assault. Absolutely pathetic! No doubt you don't even have the wit to note the absurd contradictions in what you have just said. The first thing that anybody who accepts these issues are incredibly complicated and nuanced would do is avoid using a pejorative blanket term like "woke" to avoid analysing those complicated and nuanced issues. Your claims are utterly foolish.

Hahaha, throws pejoratives around like confetti and cannot provide evidence for his quasi-religious belief system, then gets all emotional when called on it. Seriously, thanks for the laughs.

And I am in full agreement with the World Socialist Website on intersectionality/identity politics/grievance culture/cancel culture/reified postmodernism (all come under the general banner of "Woke"), so I'm to the Left of you, you ignorant neoliberal shill.

[horsefly 4,301]

1 minute ago, Mr.Carrow said:

Hahaha, throws pejoratives around like confetti and cannot provide evidence for his quasi-religious belief system, then gets all emotional when called on it. Seriously, thanks for the laughs.

And I am in full agreement with the World Socialist Website on intersectionality/identity politics/grievance culture/cancel culture/reified postmodernism (all come under the general banner of "Woke"), so I'm to the Left of you, you ignorant neoliberal shill.

Your usual pathetic response. Absolutely no argument, and no attempt to analyse the arguments contained in the tens of thousands of articles/books/reports on overt and institutionalised racism that have been peer-reviewed over decades, and are easily available on the net. Throw around a few slogans and pretend you're some kind of "lefty". What a strange kind of socialist whose views echo so fully the right-wing rants of the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Daily Express and the Tory Party. You're clearly a troll or just remarkably ignorant (almost certainly both).