Laurence Fox

Of course he knew.

However, I find this discourse the case has brought up (as in you extracts above) interesting, as I believe that people call others "racist" for precisely the same reason - to brand them undesirable and of bad character. Then because there isn't a set definition of racism (all white people are racist in CRT for example), it doesn't have the same affect, but was the intent there?
 
Fubsy said:
Of course he knew.

However, I find this discourse the case has brought up (as in you extracts above) interesting, as I believe that people call others "racist" for precisely the same reason - to brand them undesirable and of bad character. Then because there isn't a set definition of racism (all white people are racist in CRT for example), it doesn't have the same affect, but was the intent there?
Click to expand...

Generally people call people racist for being racist, happy to help x
 
Fubsy said:
Of course he knew.

However, I find this discourse the case has brought up (as in you extracts above) interesting, as I believe that people call others "racist" for precisely the same reason - to brand them undesirable and of bad character. Then because there isn't a set definition of racism (all white people are racist in CRT for example), it doesn't have the same affect, but was the intent there?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure people call others racist when they believe their words or actions are racist. Whether they actually are or not is very often opinion.
 
Fubsy said:
Of course he knew.

However, I find this discourse the case has brought up (as in you extracts above) interesting, as I believe that people call others "racist" for precisely the same reason - to brand them undesirable and of bad character. Then because there isn't a set definition of racism (all white people are racist in CRT for example), it doesn't have the same affect, but was the intent there?
Click to expand...

I just call them a bell end.
 
Fubsy said:
Of course he knew.

However, I find this discourse the case has brought up (as in you extracts above) interesting, as I believe that people call others "racist" for precisely the same reason - to brand them undesirable and of bad character. Then because there isn't a set definition of racism (all white people are racist in CRT for example), it doesn't have the same affect, but was the intent there?
Click to expand...

There is a scale of bad names, we all know this inherently, even swear words are graded. And there is a scale of insults. Earlier there is consideration of paedophile, and the judge states there is unlikely a more grave allegation than that. Personally I can’t think of a worse moral allegation than that.

And ultimately the above ignores the fact that Fox was perfectly willing to play the racism allegation against others in debate. If it’s a valid tool for him to use, it must be valid for others to use on him.
 
I agree, so we've come to the consensus that calling someone racist is meaningless, whereas calling someone a peadophile is quite egregious.

hurfdurf said:
Generally people call people racist for being racist, happy to help x
Click to expand...

You have to be able to describe something in order to label as such.

If we take the CRT definition of racism, then you, a white chap (I presume) are racist as decreed by the colour of your skin.

Or, when you call someone racist, do have in mind a Nazi saluting skinhead?

This is what happens when you dilute the meaning of words.
 
Fubsy said:
If we take the CRT definition of racism, then you, a white chap (I presume) are racist as decreed by the colour of your skin.
Click to expand...

CRT is a very American concept. It does not label all white people racist, but argues that white people benefit from systematic racism. It’s about laws and institutions rather than individuals.
 
Fubsy said:
I agree, so we've come to the consensus that calling someone racist is meaningless, whereas calling someone a peadophile is quite egregious.
Click to expand...

Well, no that is not what 'scale' and 'graded' mean as words. They are not meaningless as differentiating words and I won't even bother with whatever you thought you meant by "calling someone racist is meaningless".
Fubsy said:
You have to be able to describe something in order to label as such.

If we take the CRT definition of racism, then you, a white chap (I presume) are racist as decreed by the colour of your skin.
Click to expand...

What?

Fubsy said:
Or, when you call someone racist, do have in mind a Nazi saluting skinhead?

This is what happens when you dilute the meaning of words.
Click to expand...

No. If you take it far enough and are a prize lemon (for example, Mr LF) and want to make a court appearance and lose a ton of money and convince even bystanders that you are, in fact, not as clever as perhaps you thought and gosh, shouldn't I have stuck to acting? Well, yes.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I'm fairly sure people call others racist when they believe their words or actions are racist. Whether they actually are or not is very often opinion.
Click to expand...

Its also used as a very easy stick to beat someone with when you cannot actually explain your point of view or behaviour. Some people have been raised with such a chip on their shoulder that they see everything through the lens of racism or whatever other hangups they bear. Same reason people in certain areas hate the police. They have been brought up to hate the police. Their views and reactions to the police have little to do with the polices behaviour and everything to do with their learned view that the police are bad.
 
fez said:
Its also used as a very easy stick to beat someone with when you cannot actually explain your point of view or behaviour. Some people have been raised with such a chip on their shoulder that they see everything through the lens of racism or whatever other hangups they bear. Same reason people in certain areas hate the police. They have been brought up to hate the police. Their views and reactions to the police have little to do with the polices behaviour and everything to do with their learned view that the police are bad.
Click to expand...

Ah so its black and white is it? No grey areas.

I take it you mean POC who have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to racism? It couldn't be that they have experienced racism or seen family or friends experience it. Alan Shearer mentioned on a podcast recently that Ian Wright has been stopped numerous times in his nice car for no reason, Shearer said he hasn't been stopped once for no reason. If you think that doesn't have an affect on people you'd be wrong.

Maybe people in deprived areas who view the police badly could be because of how they and people they know are treated by police even if they haven't done anything wrong. Life is complicated and police are going to treat people with bias just because they are in a certain area and might look a certain way, its huam nature, doesn't mean it is right though.

As for Fox, the man is a POS.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Ah so its black and white is it? No grey areas.

I take it you mean POC who have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to racism? It couldn't be that they have experienced racism or seen family or friends experience it. Alan Shearer mentioned on a podcast recently that Ian Wright has been stopped numerous times in his nice car for no reason, Shearer said he hasn't been stopped once for no reason. If you think that doesn't have an affect on people you'd be wrong.

Maybe people in deprived areas who view the police badly could be because of how they and people they know are treated by police even if they haven't done anything wrong. Life is complicated and police are going to treat people with bias just because they are in a certain area and might look a certain way, its huam nature, doesn't mean it is right though.

As for Fox, the man is a POS.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't black and white. That doesn't mean that someones experiences that have shaped their views have any merit when they are making things up. Just because you have experienced racism doesn't mean you are able to objectively call it when you see it. Its still subjective and there are plenty of people who use their race as a weapon to get ahead in life and shut down debate. There is also not always a correct answer to a situation. Which is why the police should be held to account when they stop someone and handle it badly and people who are stopped and act like ***** should be ignored when they claim racism.

And if you want to talk about racism and people getting stopped, yes, if we want a police force that can effectively do their jobs, they will profile people. There is no inherent problem with that. There can be if the police force then treat those people differently once they have been stopped but unless you want the police to do a worse job in favour of political correctness than that will happen.

I don't reckon many young black men are being stopped in Norwich when they are driving expensive Audis. I reckon in parts of London they are. Police literally profile criminals. If they are trying to stop a white british gang they probably won't be looking at many black people in their enquiries and vice versa.

What would you like to see happen when crime is disproportionately committed by certain ethnics groups by the way? You can talk about trying to intervene earlier and support their communities all you like but that doesn't address the current issue. Plenty more can be done to stop people turning to a life of crime when people are young but once they are adult criminals what would you like to see happen? Sorry, we can't really do a lot about crime in your predominantly black community because we don't want to profile so sorry about the crime rate shooting up...

And when I was talking about people with a chip on their shoulder I wasn't talking about POC specifically, I was talking about any minority group. Any group that has a grievance has members of that group who see the world through that lens and blame far too much of their misfortune on it.
 
Last edited:
CapitalOne said:
I have to ask why “CRT” is being used in the above, it’s just nonsense isn’t it? If it does add something then please fill me in.
Click to expand...

Unused it as an example of an intertemporal abstraction.

As a comparison to the other example of racism I gave. Two extremes. Strange how everyone focused on one of them, but not the other.

We all know deep down that 'racist' is a word that has a certain historic and barbaric weight to it, watering it down so it can then be used to apply to a wide range of views and behaviours, as a tool to then associate that with the worst possible scenarios (literal Nazis for e.g.), is something we should maybe avoid?
 
Last edited:
Fubsy said:
We all know deep down that 'racist' is a word that has a certain historic and barbaric weight to it, watering it down so it can then be used to apply to a wide range of views and behaviours, as a tool to then associate that with the worst possible scenarios (literal Nazis for e.g.), is something we should maybe avoid?
Click to expand...

Laurence Fox lost his case. What are you asking us to 'maybe avoid'?
 
If he's not Hitler, then what does racist mean, exactly?

With as clear a definition as you would when using the word peadophile. We know precisely what that word means.

This case has clearly shown, that with Laurence Fox rightly losing, that there is a clear difference in the two words based on the weight the words carry in terms of perceived damage they can cause to a person's image.

I do agree Laurance Fox is a bad example of someone who would argue that his character is damaged, when he can clearly and consistently do that himself, but him and his cases is where it's pricked my ears. It doesn't sound right and I'm trying to understand why without just taking it all at face value.
 
If you're trying to understand the outcome of the case then you should read the Court comments which I think were posted earlier in this thread. I'll try and link them if I get time.

If you're going for the emotional "It doesn't sound right" vibe then you lost me at "


e: to add, the Court comments, not my own.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to understand the case. Or rerun the case.

I'm trying to understand the meaning of the two words included in the case.

One is clear. The other is not. Without clear definition, you don't know what you are being labelled as.

You aren't engaging in that, because like me, you haven't got a clue what that word means any more. No one does.

Would you rather be labelled as a racist or a paedophile?

I bet it's racist. However, if the word racist = Hitler, then would you change your mind?

I find this discourse fascinating, as one word has become a weapon that can be used freely but the other is restricted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom