Reply to: A litmus test

[BrollyBonce]

Thats really really not fair, totally uncalled for - I read some statistics that approx 5% of parents of Scouse Children are actually married - So they are not ALL Bastards.....

That'll be the Irish immigrants then...

[Mich the Tester]

But on the downside, they are scousers.

Couldn't agree more.

[NotAllThere]

The one really good thing about scousers is that they aren't southerners.

But on the downside, they are scousers.

[Rookie]

Living in the south myself, I fully endorse that view.

Couldn't agree more.

[Zippy]

The one really good thing about scousers is that they aren't southerners.

Living in the south myself, I fully endorse that view.

[Mich the Tester]

The one really good thing about scousers is that they aren't southerners.

[lightng]

I'm sick of you lot putting down scousers. Always focusing on negatives like scousers being thieving b@stads.

Remember the positives too! Liverpool have the best football team in Europe and after the two new signings from Japan and Italy, Liverpool are soon to be the best in the world. I for one can't wait for Nikamota (Nick-a-motor) and Robertelli (Rob-a-telly) to join the team.

[Bagpuss]

don't get me started on the Scousers!!!!

Eh Eh, calm down

[Drewster]

Any sentence that starts or ends with ianar [but] is invariably racist.

Ditto - "No offence but........" &/or "...... No offence"

Of Course its offensive!

[FSM with Cheddar]

Any sentence that starts or ends with ianar [but] is invariably racist.

[Drewster]

You forgot to mention that they are thieving bastards.

Thats really really not fair, totally uncalled for - I read some statistics that approx 5% of parents of Scouse Children are actually married - So they are not ALL Bastards.....

[Pickle2]

e.g. My experience of working with 4 major Scouse(ianar) systems integrators is that while they are cheaper, and whilst they are technically very good and polite -they simply have no(ianar) capacity for management(ianar),
worse of all - their food always seems to stink out the entire floor when they use the microwave(ianar)

:

You forgot to mention that they are thieving bastards.

[Grinder]

The place in between those two extremes is where the questions and problems arise.

Is it acceptable to generalise? I say yes, some valid things can only be said by generalisation. It is when the generalisation is applied to individuals, in ignorance or even in spite of the facts in the individual case, that generalisation becomes prejudice.

It is the prejudice that is wrong, not the generalisation.

If that is so, why is any generalisation "without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) ... not acceptable"? If I am making a generalisation but not a prejudice then it may be both courteous and useful of me to say so, but why is it compulsory?

If I am not racist, why do I have to tell you that I am not racist? If I am not racist, but I say something that a racist person might say, is it necessarily up to me to make the difference? If you make the mistake of thinking that I am racist for that, it is you who make the mistake of generalisation and prejudice about me.

So we should not be surprised - there is no "litmus test" for racism.

• With no test at all, those who are the subjects of generalisation might be victims of prejudice.
• With too simple a test, those who are generalising might be the victims in terms of false accusation.

If it was simple there would be no issue.

[expat]

Any negative comment about any group without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) is not acceptable in my view.

So you can say "I knew someone who was fat and he smelled", but you cannot say that fat people smell, even if every fat person you ever met smelled, because you have not met (or smelled) all fat people.

The place in between those two extremes is where the questions and problems arise.

Is it acceptable to generalise? I say yes, some valid things can only be said by generalisation. It is when the generalisation is applied to individuals, in ignorance or even in spite of the facts in the individual case, that generalisation becomes prejudice.

It is the prejudice that is wrong, not the generalisation.

If that is so, why is any generalisation "without examples and without stating this is a specific experience (rather than a general opinion) ... not acceptable"? If I am making a generalisation but not a prejudice then it may be both courteous and useful of me to say so, but why is it compulsory?

If I am not racist, why do I have to tell you that I am not racist? If I am not racist, but I say something that a racist person might say, is it necessarily up to me to make the difference? If you make the mistake of thinking that I am racist for that, it is you who make the mistake of generalisation and prejudice about me.

[BrollyBonce]

insert scouser in place of Indian to see if it still sounds racist.

Insert "thieving ponce" in place of "low paid, hard worker who will learn a foreign language and go half way round the world for work".

Yep, I can see the Indians being seriously offended. And I would agree with them.