UKH

When/why has this started to be so widely used?

Is it truly needed?  Is it an affectation?  Is it some kind of curious "in the know" signal?

I ask because I met someone earlier who claimed, with no hint of mischief, to be "very woke".

Wouldn't "decent" do?  Why do I feel I need a shower?  Are mussels really carboon negative?

Isn’t this something you call someone, rather than something they call themselves? 

​​​​​​Have you just woke up?

I think that people originally used it about themselves, but it's such a shit word it instantly became impossible for it not to be sarcastic. So now it's just like "SJW".

I dunno - hence the questions.  They seemed like a right tosser.

This guide will help you out: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Woke-Social-Justice-Titania-McGrath/dp/1472130847

This video explains it:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/26/tracey_ullman_hosts_woke...

I like Ms Ullman.  She wants to have fun

Ok.  Good - so i'm not alone in finding it ridiculous.

I'll go back to just taking the piss.

Wasn’t that Cyndi Lauper?

You're right.  Um, sunglasses?

I thought it came from hip hop/rap originally, people use it now to show how 'lit' they are.

It was only last week that I looked up the meaning of it. One of those words I hear on the TV and pretended I knew what it was. I didn't.

I have the excuse of being a pensioner, we are never awoke.

Nothing wrong with being woke, and snowflakes are beautiful.

Language evolves as new generations and social groupings look for ways to differentiate themselves and also to discuss the issues that are pertinent to them. Some slang drops away, some stays within a small group, and some strike a significant enough note to enter the wider vocabulary.

In this case, "stay woke" came to be used by black Americans to describe keeping up awareness of issues of social injustice, particularly in regards to race.

So it's quite a specific term - whilst woke might be a trait that the decent would aspire to, there are plenty of decent people who are not in fact woke.

Do we need it? Not really... The phrase "aware of social justice issues" would be fine, if a little less trippy off the tongue. But "thing with four legs you sit on" would work fine too, we still decided to pick the word chair.

At our age, the language the younger generations invent can grate... Just as ours did to our parents 😉

Thanks for the link, have never seen that before.
Spreading this to my friends.

Same category of person who will tell you they are very intelligent or very pretty or how incredibly knowledgable they are. Such an insanely low level of self-awareness is surely incompatible with 'wokeness' of any definition and the guilty party should be cast into the same circle of hell as those who permanently spout about the unfairness of society while their own actual concrete actions to improve the lives of others don't even extend to carrying a donor card.

I was listening to Maajid Nawaz on LBC yesterday morning whilst walking the dog and he must have used the word 20 times .He was describing the "woke" left who he partly blames for the growth of mainly Pakistani grooming gangs that are now so prolific throughout the country - over 20 different towns and cities have now reported big problems - he wants a full enquiry like the Macpherson report on Steven Lawrence as he claims thousands of young white girls have been raped by these gangs and the police/authorities have turned a blind eye...mainly due to being afraid of being branded racist by "the woke" brigade of the left - his words not mine.

An interesting topic, I had no idea it was so widely prolific and is probably worthy of it's own thread on here TBH..

thank you for letting me know of this new form of Weird Off Kilter "English".

Ah.  Thank you.  I suspected something similar - middle class white woman trying on the language of race injustice.  Sweet.

Quality rant.  Compact too. 

I think this is a serious issue - many interest groups/factions are using the technique of crying foul to any criticism as a means of making themselves beyond critique.

Racism, sexism, prejudice generally - all bad.  But doesn't mean that anyone with a minority characteristic or belief should be immune from challenge.

We've had a rather good example of this on here this week.

Meh... marks deducted for 60 word sentence, devoid of all punctuation. Bit of a pre-caffeine spittle fest TBH.

The word has extended beyond any notion of "belonging" to black America. 

I think it first became widespread in the UK during the press hyperbole about Jordan Peele's 2017 film "Get Out" which I kept seeing described as the "first woke horror". Where I say "I think it first became widespread during...." what I actually mean is that that was the first time I'd seen the term. 

Just needed "My research has concluded," added at the start to give it proper UKC gravitas

Fair enough.  Do you want her number?  I think you may need to experience it first hand to appreciate just how abnormal it sounded as self-appraisal.

I'd just put it in the same box as any climber using the words send or sent in a non postal context. 

Jon is correct upthread; "woke" is so broadly applied as both compliment and epithet that it's effectively as meaningless as "SJW" and I think falls a long way short of being a suitable explanation for something as complex as the failings in the Manchester grooming gangs cases.

I'd probably give a mental "strike one" to anyone using the word un-ironically either as compliment or insult because it's such a cliché.

What I find grating about the word is that it is a past tense word used as present tense. 

I suspect that it is a term that is rarely used as praise or self reverentially. But often self applied ironically and most often still used as an insult, often by people who don’t understand the root of the term.

I guess it would be different in urban USA, but I’m sure the vast majority of don’t experience the word in that context much.

I suppose it is just another of those often not fully understood words and phrases that people tend to use to pigeonhole others: politically correct, social justice warrior, snowflake, gammon, boomer etc.

Perhaps they're trying their best to prove that words can constitute violence?

"I think falls a long way short of being a suitable explanation for something as complex as the failings in the Manchester grooming gangs cases."

I think I would agree. But Maajids point was that if there have been muslim grooming gangs acting with impunity in , for example, Oxford, Peterborough, Newcastle, Telford, Derby, Bristol, Coventry, Ipswich, Barnsley, High Wycombe, as well as Manchester and surrounding areas and Scotland.....and the local authorities/social services and the police have been next to useless to addressing the issues when brought to attention due to fear of racism...then the word best describing the people who he thinks are responsible for this culture (he claimed nearly all labour run councils) who are very sensitive to perceived racism and injustice is "woke" 

As you say, it falls a long way short of as explanation, but does give a flavour of what we maybe dealing with.

You can blow her mind by telling her of its origins and then accuse her of cultural appropriation. Who's woke now?

Having researched this I reckon that, unfortunately, I'm not WOKE but I am "BOOMER" Is that better?

Excuse me? What's with the weird passive-aggressive attack on me? 

If you want a good chortle along similar lines, by the way, it is worth Googling just how much of a bell-end Laurence Fox (minor acting talent from the shallow end of the James Fox / Edward Fox acting dynasty gene pool) has made himself look in the past few days. 

But only because he thinks that's a perjorative term. If people are actually "woke" in the original intention of the word, they'd be awake to the suffering of vulnerable, poor children as well as racial sensitivities. Having crossed paths before, I'm not sure "woke" is a term ever easily levelled at GMP!

Hey up?!  No attack intended!  It wasn't a real offer (I don't even know who she was).

Apologies - didn't manage to convey it well.

"I'm not sure "woke" is a term ever easily levelled at GMP!"

Ha, no I expect not. It was pretty interesting show actually. He was just as savage at elements of his own religion, their communities and the mindset.. as well as the councils cognitive dissonance of "wokeness" vs South Asian abusers which allowed the mass raping etc to flourish for so long.

He was quite persuasive in arguing that a national enquiry should happen.

Thanks, no worries, just the usual "lack of tone / context" in plain text! I misinterpreted you as thinking that I was somehow defending this person's use of "woke", when in fact a) I was trying to keep my post neutral if not ambiguous and b) although middle class white Brits are perfectly entitled to use the term, it does (for vague reasons) rankle with me. 

So I in turn apologise for this misinterpretation. 

That's a whole other topic in it's own right, too.

Anyone can eat pizza, curry, pasties, haggis, bratwurst, sushi, noodles, fajitas or goulash, wear denim, kilts, clogs, etc, but as soon as a white person puts their hair in corn rows or twerks, the world has a meltdown about cultural appropriation!

I'm not sure that woke is ever used in a complimentary manner anymore?  In the last few years I have only seen it used as a derogatory term (but I read mostly right of center material).   

For those on here who dismiss the utility of a word like woke I recommend having a look at Sam Haris's "Making sense podcast", Douglas Murray's book The madness of crowds or listen to Obama (my political hero) criticizing the woke left.  Wokeness is a huge problem for the left right now.  It is the negative aspects of the Woke left that have been the biggest reasons for me (and surely many others) being much more to the right than in years past

Sam Harris has spoken about how woke culture will hand the next presidency to trump.  Sam Harris's Making sense podcast tackles woke culture (and everything else) excellently.  

I've wanted to ask this of many people who have said similar so know it's not personal, but why would the behaviour of other people make you more or less left wing? I disagree with the divisiveness of identity politics, 'woke' politics, Foucault and "Queer Theory", and cancel culture, but they're just aspects of the socially left that are daft or damaging. None of it makes me think that I should be more right wing, because there's just as much shithousery over there, plus I disagree with the politics much more broadly. I just argue against the shithousery on both sides.

So yeah, why would the nonsense of others on the left make you shift right?

hmm good point, maybe I use it as an excuse because deep down im a little guilty about being more right than i used to be Ha ha (:

I kind of hope that i am not more fundamentally right wing now than before i think it is just the current trends of the left that i dislike.

To lighten the tone slightly this may provide amusement... Probably best not to watch it at work.

https://www.facebook.com/bbccomedy/videos/10155552204996778/

Apart from a tiny minority in the party, Democrats in the US are not left wing, perhaps in comparison to some Republicans, but it’s hardly reliable measure.

Thanks for being honest. I feel the same sometimes but it's good to remind myself that idiocy around pronouns and cultural appropriation don't change how I feel about progressive tax rates and public service provision.

Is there a place for woke comedy?

youtube.com/watch?v=1RjBH9psCPI&

And there is your problem.

Rejecting wokeness, or using the term "woke" as a pejorative, shouldn't be seen as making someone "more right wing".

Similarly, if you see something "daft or damaging" it's entirely sensible to move in the other direction.  To say that itself makes you right-wing assumes the thing you are moving away from is in the centre.  When perhaps, and in the case of wokeness, all you are doing is moving from away from a morally dubious standpoint, and maybe no further than from the far-left to the centre-left. 

So long as such a move opens you up to accusations of being right-wing (as is common), there isn't much hope for moderation on the left.  

What "wokeness" is seems pretty obvious.  It's a broad-brush summary of a general viewpoint towards "less of X and more of Y".  It's no more useless a term than Brexiteer, Nazi, racist, or bigot. 

In this case, it points towards a mindset that, among other things, views minority status (or previous victimhood along a very narrow spectrum) as sufficient to warrant a wide swathe of society, from police to journalists, willingly turning a blind eye to deplorable behaviours that would be unacceptable elsewhere in society.  That was the underlying, and now awkward, mindset at play in the grooming scandal. 

Wokeness, in some ways, summarises the very worst of Leftism.  Where people do, or permit, the most hideous aspects of humanity while believing their actions are enlightened.

More practically, wokeness refers to a particular mindset adopted by many on the Left where,  having always battled against the Right for the adoption of equality under the law, the war suddenly ended and they unexpectedly won. 

But rather than embracing the peace they instead demand "Bend the knee!".   Without that monopoly on the moral high ground (equality) against the Right, they had to go "one higher" (equity).  "Equality" was a mere "10".  "Equity" means you get to go to "11" and the Right is suddenly not keeping up again.

Yet, despite the two words sounding kind of similar, it turns out they mean very different things.  And enforcing equity can be the antithesis of equality.  With inevitable results.....like Rotherham.  And male weightlifters breaking female records.  And whites being able to self-identify as blacks.  And so on.  Some amusing.  Some utterly hideous.  "Wokeness".

I don't know what 'equity' means in this context.

In what way was people failing to do their jobs for fear of being perceived as racist "enforcing equity"? I can't see how that makes sense (maybe just because I don't know what 'equity' means here).

I agree that some people think and do bonkers stuff, motivated ostensibly by a desire to treat marginalised groups properly, but gone wrong. I just don't think the best response is to attack the desire to treat marginalised groups properly - it's better just to point out where it's gone wrong, while supporting the underlying aim.

A bit like tired, exhausted... granted woke isn’t a full past participle, just a preterit but plenty, rather irritatingly, of people say I done it ( exact opposite to the woke situation).

I actually had never seen nor heard the word used that way. But then as the lady said once you’re in your 30s you turn into a right wing person.

😉

Actually, I was responding to climbercool who said he'd moved right in response to wokeness.

That doesn't matter though, you still got to perform your usual bit.

I always thought mid to late forties😠

I think it’s identity politics in general that causes people who would normally consider themselves left wing to move to the right. I find myself alienated completely at the moment. I loathe what I see as divisive and damaging identity politics on the left and I loathe the extreme form of capitalism and the racism and xenophobia on the right. 

The only potential right wing bit which seems to be surfacing in me is along the 'personal responsibility' lines of thinking that anybody who steps under traffic while browsing their mobile ought to be paying better attention, I seem to have a visceral reaction against the pavement warnings which are appearing in The Netherlands to tell phone users not to cross.

They don't change my life, but I find myself disliking them....or perhaps it is just the grumpiness which my Dad confirmed can appear during one's 40's 

At least you’ve got balance. You should try being an aged capitalist dinosaur with woke bisexual climate activist offspring

It was a reaction to the perception that Pakistani Muslim men were unfairly maligned, disproportionately and negatively over-represented, and all the resulting problems that come with that (outcry in the left-leaning press if unfair attempts to criminalise them were perceived, accusations of police racism, etc).  

The turning a blind-eye to their misbehaviours was an attempt at balance. The problem of over-representation, with the woke, must primarily sit with the Right (i.e. racism).  Accepting there might be a problem in Asian Muslim culture was to deny a woke truism and accept that the Right may have been correct about something.  That's not a convenient concession to make especially when the main tool to discredit something as being false is to accuse it of being on "the Right".

I don't think the people doing this are even aware they are enforcing equity over equality.  They probably think there is only one right direction to push in and the further you go, the better you are.  But equity is increasingly becoming an agenda item.  Equality is no longer enough.

Equality here is treating all criminals the same regardless of ethnicity.  Equity is thinking about whether too many criminals appear to be from a certain group, assuming (or being afraid of the assumption being made) that an imbalance must necessarily be a result of racism, and acting unequally to remedy it.

I don't think anyone is attacking the desire to treat marginalised groups properly.  But if you claim (and even believe yourself) to be doing something benevolently, though your actions are instead objectively malevolent, its not incumbent on others to tiptoe around the issue.  When the car is about to run over the child, you shouldn't fear that raising your voice might hurt someone's feeling.  The Left, the woke, or whatever school of thought it was that gives rise to these disasters should be roundly criticised and people should bloody wake up to how blinded they can become in their high-mindedness.

I find myself thinking that a company making green technology could bridge that divide, donate to something doing that and say it's why you worked so hard. 

"Being much more to the right" than in past years could be read a number of different ways.  If it's coming from someone who professes to Obama being their "political hero" and listening to Sam Harris, I'm not sure they do class as being "on the Right".  Many of us who were formally solidly on the Left, but moved right, are hardly right wing.

Then again, in today's woke world, that alone IS enough to make you right-wing, and mentioning Douglas Murray practically makes you a Nazi.

A kind thought. But they’ve got me well, err, trained already.

I'm never sure what people mean by "identity politics". Do they mean "politics regarding the treatment of minorities" or does it mean something more than that?

I frequently hear that "identity politics" are "dangerous", or divisive and damaging. Was New Labour's introduction of civil partnerships "identity politics" - was that "dangerous"? Was Cameron's equal marriage policy "identity politics"? Was the reaction to the Windrush scandal "identity politics"? Was that "dangerous"?

I would be interested to understand how we are to differentiate dangerous and divisive identity politics from worthwhile policies to ensure equal rights of minorities.

The recent furore over Lawrence Fox might be an example of where the differentiation lies; where deciding someone doesn't even warrant a viewpoint, or are automatically invalidated, based on their identity.  That seems pretty divisive to me.  Assuming a malign characteristic about someone on the basis of their skin colour.

The line into "dangerous" territory may get crossed when that claim is made, not with an introspective note of caution ("this may not be a good thing to say, and I'd probably be screaming bloody murder if this was said about my identity group"), but with complete self-righteousness.

What were the Right correct about? Did they know about the sexual abuse perpetrated by the Asian gangs all along?

Still don't know what 'equity' means. I really don't think you're right in thinking that the grooming scandals were a result of the authorities turning a blind-eye to criminality as a favour to the muslim community in reparation for past injustices. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

Do you think that the people who failed to do their jobs (because of the fear of being perceived as racist) are culpable, or do you think it's better to blame some amorphous "school of thought" for their failures, letting them off the hook?

I just watched the clip and this what I saw:

Audience member: "the treatment of Meghan Markle was racist" (no justification to say why)

Fox: "no it wasn't"

Audience member: "you've got no experience as a white privileged male"

Fox: "calling me a white priveleged male is racist".

So we've got two people talking complete bollocks. The audience member has given no reasons that the press were racist to Markle; and Fox says that calling him a white priveleged male is racist, when it isn't. All in all, the exchange is completely pointless, as neither of them has a valid point. 

To me using someones race in order to invalidate their point rather than engage in facts is racist. She should have asked Fox to substantiate his point but instead allowed her prejudicial stance to come out in the moment. 

The audience member had her point refuted and wanted to weaken Fox’s position by associating his race and a label about an assumed societal position as disqualifying him from speaking on the matter. That is a form of racism because she shut Fox down on the basis of his race and the label of “privalidged” that goes with it.

If I had a debate with a person from a different race I would not consider trying to weaken their argument on the basis of their race and assumed labels or generalisations that commonly go with it as I think that would rightly be seen as racist. 

The point the audience member made was, "how would you know how to spot racist motivation, when you have no experience of racism". It's not altogether unfair. It isn't racist. To say that someone occupies a privileged position with regards to their race - meaning that they have no experience of racism - isn't a slur, it isn't treating the white guy as inferior.

Is "I know more about attitudes towards AIDS in Africa than you, Fox, I grew up in Botswana" racist? No, it's just highlighting relevant life experience. Racism is treating someone as inferior because of their race, not making a fair point about relevant life experience.

There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that the meaning of racism is "to mention somebody's race". It isn't. It's to treat someone as inferior because of their race.

What the audience member is doing is using Fox's life experience of not experiencing discrimination against him. While that might not be a good argument in this case, it's not racism, and calling it racism is to completely misunderstand what racism - and discrimination more generally - is. 

The guy is full of shit, and "that's racist" is the among the shittest arguments I've ever heard.

"You have no idea about the subject because you're black" wouldn't go down too well in a lot of UKC debates.

In what context would it make any sense to say that? 

No idea. That doesn't mean such an eventuality could never arise, though. 

If it was to do with an issue that was very specific to being white, which the black person could not have experienced on account of their race, then it would be a fair comment, wouldn't it?

But this doesn't really crop up.

I agree, it would be a fair comment. But it would provoke accusations of racism from many quarters.

So we agree: accusations of racism when it's not racism are bollocks. Fox's accusation of racism was bollocks.

As are many such accusations given media prominence.

I respect your view, it is a difficult subject and a bit of a mine field. I think you’re wrong. 

If the audience member was white and tried to refute something that a black panellist stated on the basis of an assumption about that person that derives from their racial background, then the white person would be criticised for racism and stereotyping. I’d agree with that because it is totally unfair to make assumptions about individuals because of their racial background. Same as it is wrong to make assumptions on the basis of class, gender etc and use those to try and weaken someones argument. People should consider what people say based on merit and reasonable debate. 

I don’t know whether the press was racist to Megan Markle, I can imagine parts of it were and it is disgusting if that is the case. That is not the point. The point is that the audience member tried to shut someone down on the basis that he is a white male with assumed privilege. She made an assumption about him and his fitness to answer a question based on racial grounds. That is wrong; it is prejudicial. It is not a criticism based on factually asking Fox to substantiate his claim that the press was not racist to Markle. That question could have been asked. 

Saying someone is not fit to judge if racism has occurred because they are white is discriminatory. Peoples views need to be considered based on their merits and facts independent of their race. How can we ever move forward to a better society otherwise? Fox should not have had his argument thrown back at him on assumptions derived from his race. 

If making assumptions about peoples views and fitness based on their race is not racist then what is?

Ethnic minorities have done and still do experience racism. It is totally wrong. The audience member does not help activism in that area by breaching principles that are rightly put in place and upheld by many in society to ensure fair treatment and non discrimination against ethnic minorities. 

I'm sorry, but daily background-noise racism is a real thing for a lot of black people and not something any white person will have experienced living in this predominantly and historically white country. I find it astounding that some people don't think that black or Asian people wouldn't *obviously* be more attuned to that than white people. *It's not a criticism of someone to say they benefit from privilege* but a simple statement of fact. If racism exists then so must privilege (white privilege in predominantly white society) - it's the privilege of not being subject to racism.

I went to a majority Asian college and experienced racism in my direction. A weird inverse bubble in terms of the UK where anti-white racism and Asian privilege existed in contrast to society in general.

"I went to a majority Asian college and experienced racism in my direction. A weird inverse bubble in terms of the UK where anti-white racism and Asian privilege existed in contrast to society in general."

On that basis, you are someone who is white (assuming you are) and privileged, who's opinion on racism is based on direct experience. So your oppinion is worth something and shouldn't be shut down . I expect you are one of many as UK is so multicultural.

Hmmm, interesting point. I'd counter slightly by saying that I experienced very overt, direct racism within a very singular environment (2 years of sixth form college, 9-4, Mon-Fri) yes, but not the "steady-state" unthinking societal racism that pervades things like newspaper headlines, assumptions made about my wealth or lack thereof, being followed by security guards in shops, stop and search by police, etc. Even in my relatively rare example, there is nothing approaching equivalence with what the vast majority of black, Asian and Middle Eastern people will experience *as the norm*. The whole point of pointing out privilege is awareness. I don't think any right-thinking white person will need overt racism pointing out to them and explaining why it is what it is, but the more subtle all-pervasive stuff will almost always be beyond our realm of experience in this country.

Totally agree. 

Maybe you should ask your typical, black tracksuit/NF wearing, sink estate dweller about those all pervasive societal assumptions. White people definitely can suffer "steady state" prejudice.

 For a lot of those people changing their circumstances seems as probable as changing their skin colour and while you could reasonably suggest that they change their manner of dress, standing out from the crowd on a rough estate carries its own risks.

As you say, underlying this is a decent point.  White people may very well be oblivious to racism.

But, the problem is not with suggesting that, the problem is when suggesting that becomes a substitute for making an argument and evidencing claims.

Thus, a reply: "Here are three examples of racism towards Megan, X, Y and Z, and you likely didn't notice because you're white" is fine.

But too often the reply becomes (caricaturing a bit): "I refuse to even discuss this; I say it is racist and since I'm black and that means that it is racist. Since you're white you don't get a say.  I shouldn't have to present examples or make the case, my say-so is enough because it's my "lived experience" as a black person.  To even question me or expect me to support my claim with evidence is racist, as a white person you're not  entitled to an opinion". 

Absolutely, and a great example. That would be classicism Vs class privilege, which is something surely any British person can get their head around.

Aah, I recently stopped my own Dad from contemplating buying a personalised number plate, by reminding him of himself indignantly asking 30 years ago why such people didn't give the money to charity instead, I've been told I have a good memory. 

I'll be asking which charity it's gone to (I possibly just wanted to catch him out).  

Having ploughed through much of this thread, I can only be thankful that my default setting is somnolence.

Likewise, I see what you're saying but I think your wrong, and here's why:

That's true, but as I said to Tom V, that's just not going to crop up. And there might conceivably be good reason to say "since you're not white, you're going to have no experience of this" - but it's hard to see what "this" is ever going to be, in our cultural context. None of this makes any difference as to whether Fox's accusation of racism was valid, and it wasn't.

She did try to shut him down on racial grounds (and I'm not defending her, they were both full of shit), but she didn't make a negative or harmful assumption, one that would constitute discrimination. For example, "you're a black lad, so you're probably in a gang" is a negative assumption. "You're gay, so you'd be useless in a dangerous situation" is similar; so is "you're working class so you probably like football and not art". These are all valid examples of prejudice, because they make a negative assumption about someone based on some stereotype or other (you could have positive assumptions too, and these would be patronising and awful for that reason). The assumption "you're white, so you don't have experience of racism" is based on what the world is actually like, not a person's character due to some group identity. Lack of experience of racism isn't a stereotype, it's just how the world works.

I get that it's possible that if you've grown up in a mainly Asian area, or spent a lot of time in Japan, or something, it is *possible* to have experienced racism as a white guy, 

Also, Fox is a celebrity who's well known as a posh boy. The assumption hasn't been made, we all it know it to be entirely true that he's privileged. It's not prejudice, it's a totally fair assessment of him and his situation. 

That's a perfectly good defence of why the audience member was in the wrong, but it doesn't support Fox's accusation of racism being right.

Treating someone as inferior because of their race. Making a negative assumption on the basis of a stereotype is racist. Calling a white posh boy privileged is not, it's totally fair.

I would have a problem if the word "privileged" was used against someone who'd been denied economic opportunity - someone from a deprived white background - as it would be unfair. Not the case here though, not by an awfully long way.

That's a totally fair point, but is still no support for Fox's accusation of racism being valid. 

I agree that that is where the audience member was coming from and it's bollocks. 

Her point "the press were racist because I say so" was bollocks. Fox did not refute it with any arguments, he just said "no they weren't because I say so" - "how would you know, you're a white privileged male" and his response was "you're a racist".

No one had anything valid to say. It was wall to wall bollocks.

Maybe the problem is calling it white privilege, rather than say referring to minority disadvantage. Being white in the UK is the majority baseline position. Telling people with shit, difficult, impoverished lives they are privileged is pretty insensitive and inflammatory. And it shouldn’t be a competition. 

True, but that certainly wasn't what was happening on Question Time

No, Laurence Fox is far from impoverished but even so, you don’t know what shit people are dealing with. You can’t get more privileged than David Cameron and he dealt with the death of his son. 
I’ve thought Fox was a dick for a while now, but have found it hard to disagree with anything I’ve read that he’s said on or after the QT episode. 

yes. This was the first time I’ve watch QT for months, because a carpet of bollocks had become par for the course for the programme. I wasn’t tempted to give it another try.

So *now* we need police language so we don't upset people?! 

We can tell them that being black as well as impoverished is easier, even though not true?

The point is that if you suffer from poverty or discrimination, then that's on top of, not instead of dealing with all the stuff that life can throw at you such as the death of a child. I'm sure that was terrible for the Camerons, but that doesn't make them any less privileged - and it doesn't make it wrong to point out their position either.

I can see the distinction academically but I don’t think that changes how it makes the majority of people feel about it. 

I didn’t say nor infer that. 

There are some people incredibly lucky overall and more who aren't.  However in modern Britain skin colour is only one factor and will often be outweighed by others (rich, educated, stable family and black is far more privileged than poor, uneducated chaotic-familied white).  Calling people privileged because they are white is plain wrong in many cases and their skin colour will rarely be a overriding factor in their overall luck,  I'd never heard of this actor until this week but I think his response on QT to having this happen was entirely reasonable.

I'd say that's pretty wild assumption.  He could well have directly experienced racism, as you note, and in any case he should be able to see it and understand it's effects.  I've never been mugged but suggesting I can't judge what being mugged is and that it's unpleasant is absurd.

The ludicrous thing is, he was wrong. There clearly *is* an element of racism toward Megan Markle.  The woman could have pointed this out with examples but instead chose to attack him personally and groundlessly.

Really. What would you estimate the odds were of a white person in the UK having experienced racism? What abouts the odds for a non-white person?

It's possible but so what. I've been abundantly clear that I don't agree with the audience member. I just disagree vehemently that to call her racist is any way appropriate, as that simply fails to understand what racism is. 

I don't think the analogy is sensible. I can't talk about racism, but I know what it's like to experience homophobia and from the discussions I have on here and with friends it's crystal clear that a lot of people have no idea at all about what constitutes discrimination, and no intuition at all about how it feels to be on the receiving end.

Hmmmmm or Mmmmmm?

But not this one. 

Don`t know. My primary school was 70% nonwhite and I certainly did. Nothing serious but it was there. I don't think i am that unusual. 

I think only a tiny proportion of white kids are educated in majority non-white schools, so I think you are in a very small minority. Probably had an impact though, didn't it? Changed the way you see the world a bit? 

Gets my vote. 

It definitely happens enough for it not to be that unusual and if you're a poor white kid going to school in virtually any Northern ex-mill town, its pretty common. What's your point regarding the odds anyway? The odds of a woman getting raped are much higher than the odds of a man getting raped, does that mean male rape isn't really a problem society should address?

It may not fall under any strict definition of racism, but if your opening salvo in a verbal disagreement with a total stranger involves dismissing their opinion based on their skin colour... well, I'm sure you don't need me to join the dots. 

Human beings are, for the most part, incredibly good with imagination and empathy. If this wasn't the case I don't think there'd be such a huge market for novels. I've had quite a few weird and wonderful experiences but not many that totally blind sided me because they were beyond my imagination or rational expectation.

I've been in plenty of social situations where, one way or another, I've been a minority, I've been discriminated against for belonging to an out group (in a small way), I've visited countries where I've been a minority (and ripped off and treated differently as a result) and I've been threatened with a knife by a group of strangers who singled me out because of my colour. So from 50 years worth of experience of living on a planet where, in global terms, every single race is actually a minority, I reckon I can make a fair go at extrapolating what it feels like to be on the receiving end of discrimination. And I reckon most other people can too.

That seems to read as if you're saying, while you can't identify with racism because you're white, having experienced another form of discrimination you are able to identify with those that do experience racism. 

Why should that ability be denied to other whites?  You really think your experience is so unique?  Who gets membership to the "allowed an opinion" gang?

I get the strong impression people are being allowed to claim an understanding, and a viewpoint, on certain issues, less on whether their life experience is comparative or not and more on whether they happen to hold a certain viewpoint.  

Which gets back to the original point of whether the comment at Fox was racism. If the intent was simply a malign attempt to invalidate his viewpoint, and his skin colour was used to do so, then that ticks the racism box for me. 

Was pondering that the other day: the arbitrary lines used to claim minority or majority status.

Whites are a shrinking ethnic minority worldwide. They are likely soon an economic minority.  In most places I lived in London I was a minority. There are so many ways to cut it.

If you say to a white posh boy, "you've never experienced racism" you've got at least a 99% chance of being right.

If the assumption you made that involved their skin colour led you to the conclusion that they had never experienced racism, not that they were inferior, and furthermore your assumption was entirely correct, then it sure as hell ain't racism.

You might be able to. Remember that when you're in a minority that's discriminated against, it's not temporary: you are not welcome in the society you live in. The people around you wish you weren't there, and they're going to let you know any chance they get. My experience has taught me that there's a hell of a lot of people out there who haven't got a clue what that feels like, and are willing to deny that feels like anything at all. It's just moaning - we've all got problems.

Not quite. I'm saying that having experienced discrimination, I understand what it feels like. Racism is different to homophobia in some quite significant ways, e.g. everyone can see you race; your family are generally the same race as you and are on your side. So it's a different experience.

I haven't allowed or disallowed anyone an opinion. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Anyone can make a good argument. Or indeed a crap one. If you have personal experience to bring to bear, it might make an argument more compelling. If you don't, you've maybe got more work to do to be convincing that you've understood the issues, but that doesn't make what you're saying any more or less valid.

It doesn't for me, because she didn't make any unfair judgements about him or treat him as inferior. I think that to describe her comments as racist is to fail to understand what racism is. 

Bigotry in general and racism/ homophobia etc are based on people making assumptions. 

Making unfair assumptions that deny people opportunities, treat people as inferior, etc. You can't get through life without making assumptions, but if you're doing it right, your assumptions are fair.

You don't see making assumptions as a form of prejudice, then?

Every minute of every day, everyone makes assumptions. That's how we navigate the world. Prejudice is to make some sloppy assumption that causes harm, e.g. "you're a black lad, so you're probably in a gang". "You're a posh white celebrity, so you've probably never experienced racism" isn't such an assumption, it's an entirely reasonable one.

We have different definitions of prejudice, then.

Harm doesn't come into mine; it simply means holding preconceived ideas/ opinions without any factual basis.

So to assume that Fox has never experienced racism is  prejudiced. You might well be proved right with hindsight but that doesn't stop the initial assertion being prejudiced.

And I actually detect an element of micro- aggression in your use of the word "posh"........

Perhaps.

No one's ever got all the facts at hand, so we make sensible assumptions. For example, if someone looks like a man, you assume they are a man and want to be addressed as a man. You don't start asking everyone if they're transgender and what pronouns they'd like you to use, just in case you've assumed incorrectly. It would take too long.

It's a fair assumption, like assuming that someone who looks like a man is a man and wants to be addressed as a man.

And?

You said "she didn't make a negative or harmful assumption, one that would constitute discrimination. For example, "you're a black lad, so you're probably in a gang" is a negative assumption. "You're gay, so you'd be useless in a dangerous situation" is similar; so is "you're working class so you probably like football and not art". These are all valid examples of prejudice, because they make a negative assumption about someone based on some stereotype or other"

To me the audience members comments are clearly racist.  Saying "your White so therefore you cant really understand the effects of racism and would not be able to notice the subtle ways in which the media has been racist towards Markle"  is far more negative and discriminatory than the example you give of "your working class so you probably like football not art"   If i was a working class art fan I would be much less offended by someone presuming i like football then if someone told me i was not capable of understanding the medias racism towards our princess because of my skin color.   Maybe I have never been the subject of racism myself but that does not have to mean that I am any less capable of understanding it.

I tend to try not to make assumptions about complete strangers I've never met, never corresponded with and never talked to. I certainly wouldn't shout my assumptions out across a packed TV studio as this woman felt perfectly entitled to do. Plenty of posh white boys, many privately educated in the UK, found themselves kicked off their family farms and out of their own country fairly recently. I struggle to come up with any comparable level of government directed racism in a similar time frame.

The assumption wasn't just that he'd never experienced racism, it was that he didn't have the level of empathy, intelligence, experience and imagination to have an opinion on racism. Quite a set of assumptions to base on skin colour.

 There's a tiny proportion of people who feel that way about people of different races living in this country. Most couldn't give a stuff. In any given work or social situation black people are absolutely not surrounded by a seething mass of resentment. It's a massive exaggeration to suggest this. I'm amazed that you think this and am quite curious as to how you've arrived at this conclusion.

Except that in the case of Laurence Fox, she was absolutely 100% correct. He is clearly unable, and from seeing a few more choice statements from him in recent days, unwilling to acknowledge any racism apart from highly dubious examples of racism against whites. He's just said that showing a Sikh soldier in the film 1917 was racist because it distracted him from the story.

Why does it have to be government directed? Racist dog whistles by the Leave campaign, racist abuse resurfacing in football, plus the stuff that never goes away like being singled out for searching by police, being refused entry to clubs, being asked by other train passengers if you should be in first class, etc., etc,. etc.

Are you really suggesting that Zimbabwean farmers are the real pressing racist issue in the UK?

No, it’s simply a prominent example of posh white boys experiencing racism

White boys from a majority black country.

Which demonstrates that institutionalised systemic racial discrimination is based largely on minority status and not colour.

The micro aggression comment was a (failed) attempt at humour. I've only been aware of the expression since seeing the Ullman video.

Not relevant. We've already discussed examples of how it's possible for a while guy to experience racism, it's just rare in the UK. There's no point here. 

Except it wasn't just skin colour, it was him being a posh celebrity whose background and career we know, and who's just said "no one's racist in the UK". It wasn't racism, and if you think it was, you don't understand what racism is. 

I don't think that's the case for all ethnic minorities in the country, but I do think it's the case for those who are dealing with racism. That's the character of discrimination. Being treated as a second class citizen, separate to, and inferior to the people around you. If you live in an area with a load of BNP, that is going to be how it is. Or in a workplace full of racists - hopefully there aren't many of these.

I'm describing the character of discrimination, and how totally different it is to merely mentioning the colour of someone's skin in relation to their life experience. I'm amazed that you're unable to understand this obvious difference. 

Have... have you been following this thread? You know we're talking about the UK, a majority white country, right?

The class/football thing was a bad example because, as you say, it's not really discrimination (although it is prejudice, strictly speaking), just a bit patronising. However, this bad example does not make the audience member racist. 

If a white posh boy celebrity says "no one in the UK is racist" it is entirely fair to say that they don't understand or have experience with racism. It's not making a negative judgement (least of all one which treats someone as second class) on the basis of skin colour, it's on the basis of skin colour, background and crucially what they've just said! 

Obviously, no one has ever claimed that globally, white people have a monopoly on racism. We've all heard about genocides in which the perpetrators weren't white. 

Speak for yourself. I didn't know his background and career and it's quite an assumption to make on behalf of the woman in question.

So you reckon there are people dealing with racism every waking minute in this country. I cant say that's an experience that's been in any way hinted at by mates of mine who would know.

I've never worked somewhere with loads of racists, that includes environments normally cast as hotbeds of working class resentment, army, building sites and factories. Maybe it's different in white collar workplaces? As to living in areas with 'loads of BNP', what decade are you living in? there aren't loads of BNP anywhere. The latest figure I could find was 500 members in 2015, I don't even know if the party still exists.

You're  describing the character of discrimination ramped up way beyond actual reality. It's a tiny minority who are actual bigots, and a minority that harbour conscious bias.

Edit: italics 

No, we were originally discussing 'woke', a term coined from black urban America. The discussion has moved on. 

Again yes, to white privilege in terms of a UK debate. Of course that no longer applies in a majority black, black led society.

Ding ding ding! There you go: "conscious" bias. Unconscious bias affects people as well and it's this subtle, background bias that a lot of white people have zero concept of.

Where a large part of the discussion has centred on white people being unable to comprehend racism to the extent that they cant have an opinion on it. Since this thread is overwhelming made up of white people, this seems a ridiculous position to take. Do you disagree?

The example from Zimbabwe sprung to mind as, in a previous life, I was acquainted with a man who'd experienced this directly. 

But of course your superior level of wokeness means you're completely aware and able to dismiss the opinion of anyone that disagrees with you.

Nor have I. As I said, hopefully there are few of these left. There are lot of people around who've experienced decades of it. 

Well you're optimistic that those former bnp voters are no longer racist. I think you'll find the reality disappointing. 

I'm describing what matters about discrimination: being treated as second class. It depends where you go and what the social context is, whether or not you'll have to deal with it. You're clearly as optimistic as Fox that racism isn't a problem in the UK. Which is great, but it doesn't make the woman's comment racist - that's not what racism is. 

Nope. As long as people genuinely feel discriminated against, there's clearly still a problem.

I've not seen anyone say white people can't have an opinion on anything. The issue is where you have a black person saying they experience racism regularly or that there are subtle racist elements at play, and then a white person says that there's no racism in this country, it's a reasonable suggestion that the black person should be listened to and that the white person's opinion is ignorant due to coming from a position of white privilege.

Fine.

Where have I done that, or is this supposed to be the Agree With Everyone forum?

Neither have I.

Except nobody has said there's no racism in this country.

I apologise. I was being unreasonably facetious (I've been doing that too often recently).

Apart from Laurence Fox, the subject of this debate. And he did it on telly, then we've had the right wing opinionistas jumping to his side in the media and so we can expect many thousands more to think it in private.

No need, I'm a big fan myself.

No he absolutely didn't say there's no racism in this country. He said the Uk is the most tolerant country in Europe, highly debatable in itself but not the same thing at all.

Try thinking about it this way.

If I, as a middle class guy who's had a professional job all my adult life said about a single mum trying to raise 3 kids on benefits, "that's not poverty - the benefits system in the UK is the loveliest and most generous in Europe. It's not poverty", what would your reaction be?

Would it be fair to point out that I didn't have the experience to know what poverty was, and clearly I didn't understand it because of what I'd just said?

It's a very poor fit as an example. If the woman's household income falls below 60% of the median then the middle class guy is full of shit, if not he has a point.

In Meghan's case the argument centres on whether people think she's gone from being lionised to being criticised by the British press, because- A. Racism, or because- B. The Royal couple's own actions.

OK, let's change the word so you can't fall back on a technical definition. The guy says, "you're not struggling to feed your kids, the benefits system in the UK is the loveliest and most generous in Europe. It's not hardship".

I'm agnostic about whether the press were racist or not. What I'm getting at is whether or not it's reasonable, when someone claims without any evidence "it's not racism" or "it's not hardship" to point out that their life experience would put them out of touch with whether it is or it isn't.

I would imagine characterising the UK benefits system in such a way could demonstrably be shown as false. As to hardship, that's an entirely subjective measure.

Put it this way, if the Royal couple in question lost all their servants, had to fly on holiday by Easyjet not private jet, were moved into a 3 bed semi and had to both work a 40 hour week in an unfulfilling job...then no doubt to them that would feel like extreme hardship. To everyone else, it would feel like a reasonable standard of living.

Conversely, a single mother raising 3 kids under a tarpaulin in a Calais migrant camp would look at her counterpart across the channel with longing and envy.

That's the crux of what's under debate, whether one person's life experience allows them to make a judgment on someone else's. You seem to think there's a right or wrong answer. I think it's entirely down to the experiences of the people concerned.

Edit: currently watching that Sara Pascoe thing, much better than your last recommendation but her frock is hurting my eyes (entirely baseless judgment...I know nothing about frocks)

About the same as being called privileged by somebody who had greater opportunities than you. 

I don't understand the assumption that because you live a comfortable middle class life now, things must always have been the same. There must be many examples of relatively well -off people who experienced real poverty in their childhood. Judging people by their current social and financial status is at best a faulty premise  and at worst downright prejudice.

Benefiting from white, straight, or male privilege for example doesn't mean that you must be considered privileged *overall*, just that you will not likely be additionally disadvantaged due to those traits. By acknowledging the existence of, say, homophobia, the existence of the inverse, straight privilege, is implicit.

The word "privilege" seems to throw people instantly on the defensive like it's an accusation of being complicit or being happy about it, but surely the theory isn't that difficult to grasp. If someone is disadvantaged, that can only exist as a comparative to those who are not.

I don’t think it’s a difficult theory to grasp at all. However, it’s used (often in an aggressive and accusatory manner) without explanation or nuance and it’s simply the kind of thing that is guaranteed to put people’s backs up, which is counterproductive. Everything these days seems to be about highlighting differences, creating divisions and competing to be the most disadvantaged. I don’t think it’s a good way for society to operate. Pretty sure the ‘white privilege’ thing will lead to more racism rather than reducing it. Having said that, I’m not sure that’s the aim - it seems to it’s more about airing grievance and claiming victim hood. 

Navigating life is made far easier by possessing innate characteristics such as beauty, intelligence and charisma. When weighed against such assets, whether you're black or white, male or female, gay or straight pales into insignificance.

Now, imagine someone countering an opinion on the grounds that the other person has no conception of real life as they've seen it only through the privileged lens of the beautiful, charismatic and intelligent. On one hand they've got a fair point, but mostly its just bollocks cos nobody chooses their innate characteristics and everybody can be framed as disadvantaged by somebody else who's had it easier.

How about we just respectfully listen to each other and judge others on what they say and do, not what they look like?

Wowsers. Do you not think black people would rather just not be discriminated against than claim victimhood? Yeah, no problems here. No work needed here at all...

[citation needed]

You're still missing the point: To benefit from an innate characteristic doesn't mean that you yourself are disadvantaging (word?) those who do not have it, but you will be able to understand their perspective and the world itself a little better by simply being aware of that advantage being available to you. That's it. No blame. Awareness.

Always, but some people absolutely know more about certain topics through direct life experience than others and those people should be taken seriously and not dismissed as wanting to claim victimhood.

I'm not concerned with whether the single mother really is suffering "hardship" nor whether the press really were racist. On the latter, I'm agnostic - I don't know what the press wrote about her, since that's not the type of thing I'm interested in reading. I'm concerned about Fox's idiotic accusation of racism.

When someone says "that's not hardship" from a position of wealth, it sticks in the craw somewhat, and to point this out isn't discriminating against the wealthy - no one would claim that it was. Exactly the same is true here. 

The point I'm making is that to say the audience member was being racist is to fundamentally misunderstand what racism is. Racism is discrimination. It isn't mentioning someone's skin colour, how that relates to their life experience. Saying "as a woman in your 60s, you won't appreciate the pressures young men are under" isn't sexist. Saying "as a westerner, you won't appreciate how our traditional culture views homosexuality" isn't racist against westerners. Discrimination is something different to this.

Not finding it too tampony? Can't believe you didn't like Beastings. 

 You can't start asking for evidence now, several hundred words into arguing that lived experience is what counts.

No, you're avoiding the point. No one, least of all me, is arguing against awareness and for blame. I'm arguing against shutting down someone's opinion cos of their appearance. That's it. No blame. Fairness.

Yep, my point too. Some people will know more about certain topics through direct life experience. Now I'll accept you can make some judgements based on appearances but not enough to tell them to shut up and get back in their box. And I've not dismissed anyone, nor have I mentioned victimhood.

I hear this said all the time, but I've never seen a reason to think it's true. I get that there's an extreme movement in US college campuses where people who are white, straight etc, are abused for that - I've seen in on youtube - but I've never encountered anything remotely like it in real life.

Yeah, he was being a bit of a knob, but then he had just been told his opinion was worth shit cos he was posh and white... and this by a university lecturer (so hardly blue collar) who looked pretty white herself.

Totally get that. But you know 'opinions', if we start deciding we're not allowed an opinion on anything outside our direct experience what does that look like? 

What you seem to be saying is that discrimination and racism must breech a certain level to actually count. I don't think this is the case, same as most stuff, it's on a sliding scale and by twice using his colour to shut him down she's positioning herself at one end of the scale.

Beastings was type 2 fun; better when it was over. Not too tampony and I'd definitely pretend to be her brother.

If unattractive, unintelligent and uncharismatic people spoke I'd listen, but your claim is that their significance makes race, sexuality etc. "pale in significance". I'm not sure I believe that.

No one's had their opinion "shut down", but we're all f*cked if we can't make judgement calls on whether someone's opinion is clearly ignorant horseshit for whatever reason.

Ignoring pleas for educating oneself based on the opinion of those with direct experience and simply repeating an uneducated, ignorant opinion could justify being told to shut up and get back in one's box, don't you think? The victimhood dig was a hangover from Yanis above.

My intention was to be clear that that was the case- "if I, as a middle class guy who's had a professional job all my adult life said...".

In the case in question, the guy's a well-known posh boy. The information's there, it's not prejudice.

I'm not sure either, but it's in the ballpark.

Is that a plea for calling 'ignorant horse shit' based on someone else's appearance? Not for me thanks.

Yes I do think that. Has anyone said otherwise? Were any such pleas made? They certainly weren't on the segment of Question Time under discussion.

What is it with this "allowing" thing? No one's been disallowed anything. They're being disagreed with. The challenge is "how would you know", not "you cannot voice your opinion". How can anyone claim that an opinion is being silenced, when it's being broadcast on live TV? Either an opinion is welcomed and accepted without challenge, or else it is being "disallowed" or "silenced" - in spite of the empirical fact that we've all heard it.

Every single time I hear the words "disallowed" or "shut down debate" or "silenced" regarding something that's all over the TV and internet, my bullshit alarm goes berserk. 

I'm saying that for something to be racist, it must be about treating someone as second class due to their race. To say "you don't understand this" isn't treating someone as second class. I find the attempt to dilute what we mean by "racist" to be misguided at best, and sinister at worst.

No. It's based on that person being well known and having previous.

As above, Fox is a known entity and wears his ignorance with pride.

I'm ducking out now.

I'm getting the feeling that you haven't watched the segment. The moment the two disagree she uses the phrase "privileged white man" three times in ten seconds and concludes with "you cannot dismiss...", not quite "you cannot voice your opinion" but certainly close enough to win second prize.

Really? are you saying you've never seen someone try do those things on TV debates? I don't think I've ever said this to anyone before, but perhaps you should watch more TV.

Semantics. What exactly does "treating someone as second class due to their race" look like then? Is it just denying them a job or a seat on the bus? Is there now a threshold below which it's OK to behave differently towards people cos they're black or white. Can't imagine teaching my kids that.

Nobody isn't allowed an opinion. That said, my opinion on life in Britain as a young black man for example isn't worth shit compared to the testimony of those for whom that is a reality because I have zero experience of it, first or second hand.

His colour is quite clearly relevant to his experience of racial prejudice in Britain, he is part of the in group. She's not saying he can't have an opinion because he's posh and white, just that inevitably his experiences which inform that opinion will inevitably be shaped by his insider status. They may be valid and grounded in his limited context but they are not reality for others.

jk

I heard everything Fox had to say. He wasn't prevented from speaking. Yes, she tried to invalidate what he said, and he tried to invalidate what she said by responding "you're being racist". They disagreed. No one was silenced. 

What I see is people disagreeing: "you're wrong because...". Sometimes they give good reasons, e.g. "the facts are not as you say". Sometimes they're bad reasons e.g. "because you're a white privileged man" or "because you're being racist". 

The time when the terms "shutting down" or "silencing" are appropriate are regarding "cancel culture" - and that's not what we're talking about here.

Nothing like what the audience member was doing, for starters. It's about that person being worth less because of their race. To treat someone as second class could be to give a reminder of who's got the upper hand, e.g. using language like 'paki', 'faggot' etc. that carries the history of abuse. Dehumanising people by reducing them to a stereotype, e.g. assuming that an asian guy runs a corner shop when he's a teacher. Discrimination isn't something that crops up just because you disagree with someone's opinion, it's action motivated by an attitude that people from that minority group are inferior.

As I said, I think it's obvious. Maybe because I've experienced it, or maybe not. If people don't like me because of my opinions that's fine and that's nothing to do with discrimination. If people don't like me because they don't like gays, that's an attitude that leads to discrimination, and it stinks. The audience member laid into Fox because of his opinion, not because of his race. The difference is blindingly obvious to me.

Had someone who was black said what Fox did, would her reaction have been the same?

It's straying into dubious territory.   Compare to: "owing to your sex/race, you wouldn't  understand maths".

We've been though both of these point multiple times now, e.g.

If a white posh boy celebrity says "no one in the UK is racist" it is entirely fair to say that they don't understand or have experience with racism. It's not making a negative judgement (least of all one which treats someone as second class) on the basis of skin colour, it's on the basis of skin colour, background and crucially what they've just said! 

I'd agree they were both being dicks about it, with the result that neither got to make a reasoned argument. 

Fair.

I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with you on this. I just don't believe you can neatly box off discrimination as existing at one level, it covers a spectrum.

Yeah, she laid into him because of his opinion, no issues with that, but she did so using the phrase 'privileged white male' 3 times in 10 seconds. Now you can say it had nothing to do with his race, and it probably didn't, but the words coming directly out of her mouth certainly make it look like it did.

Bottom line is I thought they both came out of this badly and I wouldn't wish to defend either of them.

I think we agree - she used his race against him, but she wasn't getting at him *because* he was white.

As I said, wall to wall bollocks. Telling also that *both* have received death threats after the event. And they weren't all from me

.. or assuming a white guy is privileged and has no insight into racism

Assuming a celebrity actor who went to Harrow and has just said that "the UK is the loveliest, most tolerant country in Europe" is privileged and has no insight into racism is entirely fair, and most certainly is not racist.

If you use someone's race "against him",   (your words) is that not racist?

I've explained that racism is about a belief that a person (not an opinion) is worth less because of their race, and to treat them as second class. Examples include giving a reminder of who's got the upper hand, e.g. using language like 'paki', etc. that carries the history of abuse; or dehumanising people by reducing them to a stereotype, e.g. assuming that an asian guy runs a corner shop when he's a teacher. 

But surely your own "posh white privileged" guy is a bit of a stereotype, isn't it?

Fox is, factually, a posh white privileged guy. No stereotype is needed: the facts are in front of us.

I think "posh" is an opinion/perception  rather than a statement of fact. Some of the kids I taught thought I was posh. My dad was a diesel fitter and my mum a mill worker. Assumptions.

Well either way, it doesn't cause any great harm to call someone posh, so I'm not really bothered how well justified it is. Calling someone who went to Harrow 'posh' seems entirely fair to me, and is nothing like calling an asian guy a 'paki'.

Obviously the woman QT audience member didn't mean the posh toff can't know what all racism is as she was referring specifically to anti-black racism which he would not know so much about.

Therefore posh tw*t was wrong as there is obviously nothing racist about what she said. 

Since you are differentiating between forms of racism, it's fair to say that there there was nothing anti-black racist in what she said.

I read something about 'The moment a person believes they are interesting, they cease to be', I don't know if the same applies to woke, but it seems like 'wise' or 'deep' or 'spiritual' to me, in being something for other people to notice. 

'Naah' is probably the right response to profound compliments.

Victims of any specific type of racism by any of the categories of race have all been subject to racism but it takes on different forms dependent on the specific category of race that is targeted.

A white person from say Europe targeted for a particular form of racist abuse by British Pakistanis for example will be better able to state whether it was racist as they were on the direct receiving end of it and the same for other races.

I mean why do we not use the derogatory n word or p word or all the myriad others that we used to use anymore? Because of the direct experience of those on the receiving end of tge racist abuse and not by some white - or other race- person saying but they are dark so what's so wrong with calling them dar*ies? Or pa*is?

Isn't this obvious?

The reason this silly conversation is even taking place is due to the mainstreaming of the far right. This bollox used to be their marginalised domain completely and it was shunned wherever it arose but now it is mainstream which is very scary.

Edit--And the far right are always pushed mainstream by the capitalists after the capitalists collapse capitalism (2008,1929) as we then see the more discerning of the normally docile obedient masses focus on the inherent contradictions in it and a solution to it, ie. Socialism.

Fascism, organised gangsters, organised religious thugs and mercenaries are all the employed attack dog armies for the capitalists against worker control. Just like the hired strike breaking gangs, police and army were used by employers groups from the start of organised workers movements demanding fair treatment and a better society. 

It's a stupid word, that doesn't help its image. If I understand it right (and I'm sure a couple of posters will be all too happy to disabuse me) all it really means is interested and engaged in the things that matter deeply to others. In times passed we might have used the word decent. I think it's reasonable (if risky) for people to recognise that in themselves as well as in others.

jk

To be from the majority race in any country (it doesn't have to be white), affords that person a privilege that anybody from a minority there doesn't have, to do with  preconceptions and prejudgements (prejudices) which come to mind based on race (regarding associated traits or communities etc). In practical terms, it's down to not going on direct experience. 

Edit: I think we're in agreement now I think of it.

I don't think the majority race had many privileges in South Africa during the apartheid regime.

The minute people start automatically thinking they're decent (or woke), they also start to automatically think they're right. Then they start automatically thinking the other guy is wrong.

Next thing you know, there's an enormous gaping hole in the body politic with people shouting across it at each other. Sound familiar?

Yep. 

Yes but you won't be surprised to hear we don't agree entirely on what's caused that hole and all the shouting.

As I said, forming and expressing opinions of ourselves is risky especially where we might want or need others to agree

jk

A piece by my partner around the time of Harry and Meghan's wedding:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X7Usl-vnrzDgL8rW4fyVGIhnTzpqVwNXR4IfZA1...

Obviously, but as an ex teacher I'm crediting you with knowing what I meant.

I think saying being the majority is a "privileged" (horrible term) position is absurdly simplistic, to the point of being simply wrong.  Tom gives one blatant counter example.  More generally someone's position in society in down to a huge range of factors, of which being part of a majority may or may not be an advantage.

Interesting assumption.

Would you have credited me with less understanding  as, say, a drystone waller? Or bricklayer? Or joiner?

Nope.  While I bridle at the assumption that people with practical jobs are less intelligent, a certain intelligence is needed if one is to be a teacher, hence why I credited you with it. I hope that covers all angles.

It's about awareness (or lack of) and not having assumptions made about oneself due to skin colour, that is the only sense in which I mean privilege, not wealth, or how able one's parents are, or anything else, simply just the assumptions which can be made because of one's skin colour, assumptions which don't tend to be made by people who know more about or have had more to do with whichever minority it is (or by people who are good at approaching everybody as 'somebody brand new to find about about', something a friend is especially good at).

Which is an unusual historical example, it's absolutely nothing like how liberal western societies work. We can all think of other cultures which work very differently to ours. It doesn't have any relevance.

That's true, but it's misunderstanding the meaning of "white privilege". To say someone is in a privileged position with respect to their  race, it means that they're in a privileged position with respect to their  race. It doesn't mean that they occupy a privileged position overall, for example, that they have the best economic opportunities.

Because the term "white privilege" is misunderstood in this way, I think it's best avoided. It's a logical necessity that if racism towards non-whites exists, then being white gives you the advantage of not being at risk of that racism. Anyone who thinks that racism, in our society, is independent of race and can happen to anyone, is simply wrong. Being white, while not offering you better economic advantages and an automatic position of privilege overall, does reduce your risk of suffering racism enormously. That's what "white privilege means".

But since it's either honestly or deliberately misunderstood, it's not a good phrase to use.

Laurence Fox gets the Hyde treatment:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2020/jan/23/want-to-...

I don't think that's how it's usually intended or received.  It has a strong flavour of dismissing someone as undesirable, lacking in understanding and having undeserved power because of their skin colour

I agree that it had been weaponised - and I wouldn't use the phrase for that reason. The trouble is that as a response it's become common to say "white privilege doesn't exist", which is the same as saying "racism doesn't exist". I'm sure you can see the problem with this. 

Hey Jon.

Is the problem that the meaning of words/phrases aren't static?

https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/

The meaning of some words/phrases change rapidly.  I would hazard a guess that the meaning of new words/phrases change more rapidly than those which have been around for 100's of years.  Woke & White privilege are probably two examples of words/phrases whose meaning are changing in so far as how large parts of the public are using them today is not how they were being used only a 4/5 years ago and is not globally consistent across different groups.

I think the problem is that it in response to a new term being used to wallop one group (the right?), that side is liable to respond and in some cases start to use those same words to wallop the other side (the left).  In doing so the original meaning of the words can change.  Certainly feels like that might be happening here.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2020/jan/21/how-the-word-woke...

"Woke" used by the left can mean a totally different thing than "woke" used by the right.  Same with white privilege.

To answer your point above "the correct understanding of what white privilege means" .. I agree but I think you have to first understand what the person who is saying understands white privilege to mean to them.  Only then can you understand what they mean with the words.  

(NOTE:  I am NOT suggesting for a moment that anyone can say anything they like and then define retrospectively what those particular words meant to them at that particular point in time and hence how others should understand them.  I am saying only that these two particular words might be best described as "currently in flux" and as such we need to read more than simple the dictionary definition of what they are in order to understand what someone is actually trying to say.)

Cheers.

Not so much that white privilege doesn't exist, more that it's a crap phrase, predicated on baseless assumptions that stretch the actual meaning of privilege beyond its dictionary definition. Up thread you pointed out how crass it would be for a comfortably off, middle class man to tell a single mother of 3, subsisting on benefits, that she didn't know what hardship was. Would it be any less crass for that same mother to be told to check her privilege by a comfortably off, middle class black man?

No. But if after he'd complained about being discriminated against she told him that racism didn't exist, she'd be full of shit, no matter how poor she was. 

But nobody is arguing that racism doesn't exist. The argument is that if 95% of the people around you are being treated exactly the same then they aren't receiving special treatment, they're receiving normal treatment. 

Edit: I think my real point is that insisting people are getting 'special treatment' when there's nothing 'special' about their lives, their circumstances or their treatment, it just gets their backs up and unnecessarily clouds a debate that would be better served if it concentrated on actual mistreatment due to race.

All true, but many white people who spend the vast majority of their lives not feeling painfully aware of their race are still feeling qualified to dismiss that experience as described to them by non-white people. At that point, unfortunately for their feelings, those white people need to be reminded that perhaps they don't have the necessary insight to make those judgements on society.

As a separate but related point, it appears that pointing out racism seems to currently be less socially acceptable than racism itself. Not sure how we ended up here.

This is the problem with most "woke" concepts.  They start off with an entirely fair and reasonable point; and then they completely weaponise them.

That would be a great point. If it wasn't total unmitigated bollocks.

How did the term "weaponise" ever become attributed to words or sayings?

We ended up there because too many have strewn around accusations of "racism" way too freely, and use such accusations to shut down debate.   That inevitably produces a response.

But how, then, do we fairly assess the prevalence of racism in the UK today?  

On the one hand, we have the testimony of non-white people.  But, two problems.  First, there is nowadays an intersectionalist/woke ideology that says that non-whites are generally oppressed by whites.  Thus the claim "racism is pervasive" has an ideological component, and it may be that some people are saying it because that's what their ideology says.

[As a comparison, in America today, many White, evangelical Christians claim to be being "persecuted" by a secular state; no they are not, but they claim it because their ideology says it.]

Second, often the loudest voices among the non-whites are activists and may not be representative.

So, it's fair to ask the question. But, if any white people who question this get disqualified, on the grounds that it would not be them experiencing it, then how do we judge the issue fairly?

I don't think we can proceed purely on testimony of minority groups, because, as just stated, that allows loudest-voice activists to control the debate. 

Have a like for "unmitigated bollocks", one of my favourite two-word phrases.

At which point does someone complaining of societal problems become an activist and why would that necessarily devalue their opinion? Do you think that it's just idealogues and activists who are complaining of background everyday racism that whites for the most part don't comprehend?

I see Burger King are using 'woke' in their adverting for a vegan whopper...

I wonder if that's a reference to the panning they apparently got for a 'mental health' campaign they ran last year with different 'mood boxes' for their takeaway packaging...

With a bit of luck it will put people off using the word. Now if we can just get their writers to incorporate "send" into an advert......

It would devalue their opinion if there is a strong ideological component to it -- which there often is with activists.

I don't know.  That's why I asked the questions. 

So you're offering skepticism for skepticism's sake? 

Nope.  I think that knowing how prevalent racism is in the UK today is actually a reasonably important item in its own right.  Don't you? 

Absolutely. A lot of this debate is about people using words in ways that someone else doesn't like - I don't like the way fox used "racist", I thought it was bollocks. Other people don't like the way "privileged" is used, although in the case of fox specifically I don't think they've got a point. 

Yes, absolutely. Like you, I would hesitate to label it "left" and "right". This comes more from the history of right wingers being racists and left wingers fighting for equality - but I don't think these labels apply accurately today. 

Yes I agree. I'm talking specifically about the way fox and the shouty lady used the words "racist" (incorrectly) and "privileged" (correctly) but I can't generalise this to other situations where these words are used with different intentions, in different contexts. I quite agree that the word "privileged" can be used unfairly - but it wasn't in this case. 

When it's about most people most of the time, not making assumptions about oneself due to skin colour, and focusing on the UK (rather than South Africa which was a construct of colonialism), I have to ask why*?

 *If that is the context within which you see it as an absurdly simplistic term to the point of being wrong...