Asking someone where they are from

In the past I have been repeatedly asked where I am from, as I was born in South America but grew up in Scotland as I was adopted at birth by my white family.

So I can totally understand why she found the repeated "questioning", extremely uncomfortable and awkward, and tiresome.

I think it is a shame though that she has chosen to not focus on her charity, and support the event which was about victims of domestic abuse, and made it all about herself, and milked the situation for all it was worth.
 
Alice In Wonderland said:
I think it is a shame though that she has chosen to not focus on her charity, and support the event which was about victims of domestic abuse, and made it all about herself, and milked the situation for all it was worth.
Click to expand...

That is perhaps unfortunate. However (and i am sure you can appreciate that) that is a different debate altogether, and doesn't change the original event and how SH spoke to her.
 
NVP said:
:cry: again he interjects but adds nothing.
Click to expand...

It's standard, it works maybe in SC where some of the threads are basically containment threads, in a thread like this where there are more people with opposing views then throwing in a sensible-ish sounding paragraph or two that actually just boils down to a bit of posturing and little in the way of substantial argument (other than just reiterating support for a side) doesn't work so well.
 
NVP said:
I've engaged plenty, I enquire further directly with you and you refuse to state anything claiming nonsense like the above. Multiple times. Quite telling.
Click to expand...
I’ve replied to you multiple times.

I think what you are trying to say is in your opinion it wasn’t racist, not that is wasn’t. I explained to you why I thought it was, stop with the no one’s actually…
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
It's standard, it works maybe in SC where some of the threads are basically containment threads, in a thread like this where there are more people with opposing views then throwing in a sensible-ish sounding paragraph or two that actually just boils down to a bit of posturing and little in the way of substantial argument (other than just reiterating support for a side) doesn't work so well.
Click to expand...

"posturing"

Woop! Another hit on my Dowie bingo card.

You are really filling it up in this thread. Keep it up.
 
GordyR said:
Hilarious.

The entire post was prefaced with an explanation that I had no intent on repeating the arguments that have been made by multiple people multiple times, because you and others have repeatedly ignored them or have painstakingly attempted to bat them away on increasingly bizarre and laughable technicalities.

That you’ve chosen to completely ignore that when constructing these two breathtakingly daft responses, is no real surprise.

I suppose It’s helpful to employ selective reasoning when you’re mentally squirming in order to avoid confronting the obvious.

The old proverb rings true:

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink think.

But anyway, I’ll say it again, because it’s becoming increasingly clear what’s going on here - Thou doth protest too much.
Click to expand...

Gordy the problem is that the arguments for why it's racist from earlier and throughout the 40+ page thread are all quite emotive, touchy feely, non-quantifiable arguments. It's clear that some people here prefer to make quantifiable objective arguments and others don't like this approach. Ok that's just because we're different people and have different ways of assessing things in life.

But the problem with being unable to quantitatively justify why this wasn't just insensitive rudeness and was racism, is that it opens people up to trial by media, public floggings type behaviour. You are saying that anyone defending this must be racist themselves - and you are staunch in that view and won't be moved. So we're all racist for trying to defend an objective view of this? That is highly illogical and belligerent behaviour which simply seeks to shut down any discussion. Where does it end? Can we not defend an alleged ageist act, or an alleged sexist act, or an alleged act against a disabled person either because if we do we're all of those -ist's as well?

I wonder why you are so convinced it is racism, perhaps you want it to be so badly for other reasons that you can't see logic.
 
Last edited:
danlightbulb said:
Gordy the problem is that the arguments for why it's racist from earlier and throughout the 40+ page thread are all quite emotive, touchy feely, non-quantifiable arguments. It's clear that some people here prefer to make quantifiable objective arguments and others don't like this approach. Ok that's just because we're different people and have different ways of assessing things in life.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but it is objective and is quantifiable.

Insisting on asking/repeating questions about where someone is from (even after they have told you), and not accepting that she could "really" be from Britain, and that "her people" must be from somewhere else is racist.
 
Craterloads said:
I’ve replied to you multiple times.

I think what you are trying to say is in your opinion it wasn’t racist, not that is wasn’t. I explained to you why I thought it was, stop with the no one’s actually…
Click to expand...
And I have replied to you, to that specific post and more, you didnt accept my response iirc. What's your point here? Are you taking something personally when I'm referring to another poster or something? :confused:
 
Jono8 said:
I'm sorry but it is objective and is quantifiable.

Insisting on asking/repeating questions about where someone is from (even after they have told you), and not accepting that she could "really" be from Britain, and that "her people" must be from somewhere else is racist.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that NF being dressed head to toe in African tribal clothing could have suggested to SH that perhaps NF wasn't from Britain and is the reason why the questioning started the way it did?

Yes that is an assumption on my part that SH isn't implicitly racist to start with and that there is therefore a reasonable alternative explanation for this event. But you are making an equally strong opposite assumption that she is implicitly racist to start with and that there isn't therefore a reasonable alternative explanation for the conversation. Which is more dangerous?

The facts here are that NF is British but has Caribbean and African heritage that she has chosen to embrace. That matters to the context of this. It can't be black and white (pun not intended) you should dig into things and not take at face value. You would do that in other areas before making a judgement if you're sensible so why not in this?

That is the objectivity part of this whole argument - digging in to the reasoning behind what's happened to make a better judgement, not simply taking the words and each reading into our own emphasis.
 
Last edited:
NVP said:
And I have replied to you, to that specific post and more, you didnt accept my response iirc. What's your point here? Are you taking something personally when I'm referring to another poster or something? :confused:
Click to expand...
No not at all.

I'm questioning your claim that it has been pointed out why it was racist, it has over 40 pages. Because you didnt accept my response or others responses doesnt make the earlier part true using your logic.
 
LOL I explained quite well why I didn't completely agree with your statement and where your thinking was incorrect. I reply to every valid question or point.

You simply replied to my explanation, quite disingenuously, with something along the lines of "well that's not how my brain works" or something lame like that so apologies if I decided to not entertain you further :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom