Racism: Is this productive?

baron

Unregistered
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
8,627
The primary question, before I even post anything else, is whether the coverage and outcomes of this incident are conducive to making people more or less sympathetic towards racism.

Earlier this week a video emerged of a 15 year old school boy, a Syrian refugee, being attacked on school grounds by a larger English kid of the same age (or possibly 16 depending which source you believe). The latter repeatedly demands, "What have you been saying now?" and attempts to headbutt the smaller kid but misses. He then grabs the kid round the neck, pushes him to the ground and pours water on his face saying, "I'll drown you." The smaller kid, uninjured, gets up and walks off.

When I first saw the video I thought it was pretty low. Not really the sort of welcome that places this country in a good light. I hate bullies and hoped the school would take immediate action against the boy and caution all the other kids against this kind of behaviour.

Then came the reaction, and the coverage. The news media played the video repeatedly on prime time, second only to BREXIT. Little or no background was given. The incident was framed as a racist assault and the pouring of water over the boy's face as 'waterboarding'. It was also reported as front page news in the papers where, in some cases, it is still running today.

The bully was immediately arrested by the police, attended court and was bailed pending further action. The charge is common assault with no racial motivation. The public backlash against the boy went into full swing and after social media death threats and carloads of individuals shouting outside his house he fled the country in the middle of the night with his mother.

Several Go Fund Me pages were set up for the Syrian boy and his family. The largest one has accrued over £150,000.

Large groups of Pakistanis, led by a local imam, gathered outside the school and demanded a meeting with the headmaster, which they got. The school was criticised for allowing this bullying to occur. "Schools in the area," said one protester, "need to do more to integrate refugee families.”

The imam leading the protest said of the country that saved the refugee family from almost certain death and torture in Syria; “There is a problem with the whole system, they should never have been placed here [in a white area]. There are so many other areas locally which would have been better suited to their needs and we would have been able to avoid this situation.”

It is claimed that the Syrian boy who, with his family, was rescued from the city of Homs that has been flattened by bombs and poisoned by chemical attacks, is too traumatised to return to the school.

Rumours circulating include

* The bully and the Syrian kid were friends until they had a falling out, resulting the in the altercation.

* The Syrian's arm had been broken in an earlier attack by four other (different) kids.

* The Syrian kid's sister had been subject to racist bullying the day before and her headscarf pulled off.

* The school had a history of tensions between Muslim and non-Muslim pupils, with a 13 year old white kid beaten by a gang of Muslims the week before.

The Syrian boy reportedly said, “I am very concerned about the violent comments going out on social media about the bully. I don’t want anything terrible to happen to him at all. I just don’t want anything bad to happen to anyone.”

The Syrian sounds like a decent lad and certainly doesn't come across like a trouble-maker, but the over-reaction by the media and on social platforms to what is an everyday school yard incident is, IMO, so vastly over the top I can't bring myself to care about any of those involved.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rding-attack-Syrian-refugee-denies-bully.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7850941/bully-syrian-classmates-waterboarded-blames-victim/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/29/bullied-syrian-refugee-huddersfield-school
 
Last edited:
Reacting to events without knowing the facts is usually foolish. That includes attempting to draw conclusions about situations which are themselves reactions to an event without knowing the facts; it's recursive, and therefore neither the OP nor I should have posted anything at all. Unread this thread immediately, for the sake of proper intellectual skepticism.
 
What TM said. Premature over-reaction is a very human phenomenon unrelated to any one issue, and the internet feeds it.
 
Baron, how does this incident relate to your question, and what kind of discussion on this issue are you looking for?

People can discuss what they want but my question is the one I posed; "The primary question... is whether the coverage and outcomes of this incident are conducive to making people more or less sympathetic towards racism."
 
sympathetic towards racism.

Sorry, but this is a phrase that just bewilders me. It conjures an image of people saying, "Ya know, racism has really been treated unfairly as of late."

Perhaps you should elaborate.
 
I don't know... I suppose that for every person who jumps to their preferred conclusion and gets outraged, someone else sees this as a justification for their antipathy towards the first group.

So... a net effect of 0?
(Disregarding that this could imply that the extremes on both sides are getting more extreme this way)
 
Sorry, but this is a phrase that just bewilders me. It conjures an image of people saying, "Ya know, racism has really been treated unfairly as of late."

Perhaps you should elaborate.

Slightly OT, but where I live I have heard that phrase uttered with zero irony.

I’m sure it’s more common as a public sentiment here, but I do not disregard it as existing in more couched forms all over the globe.
 
Cool, let's play "We don't understand grade 1 level English." I'll start! Actually no, I'll not bother.
 
People can discuss what they want but my question is the one I posed; "The primary question... is whether the coverage and outcomes of this incident are conducive to making people more or less sympathetic towards racism."

I think the answer is "Yes." They are conducive to making people who are sympathetic towards racism more sympathetic towards racism, and they are conducive to making people who are unsympathetic towards racism less sympathetic towards racism.

Dave
 
I think the answer is "Yes." They are conducive to making people who are sympathetic towards racism more sympathetic towards racism, and they are conducive to making people who are unsympathetic towards racism less sympathetic towards racism.

Dave

I agree.
 
Earlier this week a video emerged of a 15 year old school boy, a Syrian refugee, being attacked on school grounds by a larger English kid of the same age (or possibly 16 depending which source you believe). The latter repeatedly demands, "What have you been saying now?" and attempts to headbutt the smaller kid but misses. He then grabs the kid round the neck, pushes him to the ground and pours water on his face saying, "I'll drown you." The smaller kid, uninjured, gets up and walks off.

The sad reality of this is that violence of this sort is not particularly uncommon in schools, but a lot of the time there is no discernable racial element whatsoever. A white kid beaten up (more severely that an alleged headbutt and getting doused with water) by another white kid - or a black kid beaten up by another black kid, or whatever other same-on-same combination - doesn't generate £150k on a GoFundMe page. In most cases police don't really get involved and schools will often work to encourage the victim to move, rather than the perpetrator.
 
Last edited:

Your binary opposition to idea X reminds me that the real world is not binary, and that most ideas have pros and cons, good tradeoffs and bad, and that idea X probably has something going for it that you're not telling me. In addition, the extremity of your intolerance encourages me to adopt idea X if it has any redeeming qualities at all, if it means opposing your intolerant extremism.
 
Your binary opposition to idea X reminds me that the real world is not binary, and that most ideas have pros and cons, good tradeoffs and bad, and that idea X probably has something going for it that you're not telling me. In addition, the extremity of your intolerance encourages me to adopt idea X if it has any redeeming qualities at all, if it means opposing your intolerant extremism.

Never put salt in your eyes.
 
Racism isn't a score card we're trying to even out, it's a problem we're trying to fix.
 
Then came the reaction, and the coverage. The news media played the video repeatedly on prime time, second only to BREXIT.

OK, this absolutely, categorically, did not happen. As your entire post is based on inaccuracies there is no point discussing it. Come back with an accurate one and people can start from there.
 
Sorry, but this is a phrase that just bewilders me. It conjures an image of people saying, "Ya know, racism has really been treated unfairly as of late."

Perhaps you should elaborate.

What's often bashed as "racism" is really folk-wisdom regarding people of other cultures.

/sarcasm
 
The irony is nothing is really being argued here.

1. Racism exists.
2. It can affect everyone.
3. It affects certain groups more.

Literally nobody (worth talking to) is debating those points. Everyone just fighting over the victim narrative.
 
It's a reference to something. And if you don't know the difference between saline and table salt I suggest you avoid becoming a nurse. Or a cook.

Just so we're clear: Putting salt in your eyes is a nuanced idea that has substantial merit and should not be dismissed out of hand, yes? And "don't put salt in your eyes" isn't actually a good example of a rational binary position, yes?
 
It's a reference to something. And if you don't know the difference between saline and table salt I suggest you avoid becoming a nurse. Or a cook.

I remember a Kids in the Hall sketch from back in the day?
 
I'm guessing racism is an issue in the area. It's not like this is a one-off except maybe the attention. Baron posts a lot of posts complaining about all the xx while black threads.

So some questions for you Baron:

Do you deny racism exists?
Do you resent the attention it gets in the media?
Why?
 
The primary question, before I even post anything else, is whether the coverage and outcomes of this incident are conducive to making people more or less sympathetic towards racism.

Your question presumes that "the media" (infotainment industry) is acting not as self-serving rational actors in a capitalist system looking to sell advertisements/viewers, but as agents of morality. This is a flawed assumption, like asking if penis-enlargement pill internet spam is conducive to human health and social well-being.
 
The irony is nothing is really being argued here.

1. Racism exists.
2. It can affect everyone.
3. It affects certain groups more.

Literally nobody (worth talking to) is debating those points. Everyone just fighting over the victim narrative.

More proof of this place's lack of diversity. There are plenty of people (I'm referring to people of color) who don't agree with that. Here's an example. At 1:02 in this video, a Muslim woman calls a white lady a "white slag" on a London subway. The white lady, being white, tries to scold the Muslim for being "racist." Of course, it has no effect. She doesn't care if calling someone a white slag is "racist" as there are no social penalties for that behavior in her group. "Racism" is typically something only white people concern themselves with. And calling a white person "racist" works well to control them. So why would you hand someone else your greatest weapon?
 
Last edited:
The answer is no, the overreaction of some people against racism does not justify racism or make it acceptable.

That's certainly an answer, but not to any question in this thread.

I think the answer is "Yes." They are conducive to making people who are sympathetic towards racism more sympathetic towards racism, and they are conducive to making people who are unsympathetic towards racism less sympathetic towards racism.

You think the reaction is divisive. I agree.

The sad reality of this is that violence of this sort is not particularly uncommon in schools, but a lot of the time there is no discernable racial element whatsoever. A white kid beaten up (more severely that an alleged headbutt and getting doused with water) by another white kid - or a black kid beaten up by another black kid, or whatever other same-on-same combination - doesn't generate £150k on a GoFundMe page. In most cases police don't really get involved and schools will often work to encourage the victim to move, rather than the perpetrator.

The GoFundMe is absurd and I did wonder about the police involvement. According to certain accounts a group of four of five kids had already been arrested due to a previous incident at the school and had appeared in court. I don't know if police involvement is the default now but certainly in my day I saw dozens of incidents without a single copper in sight (actually, when a 12 year old kid stabbed another for tearing up his French book I presume the police were involved although I didn't see them).

OK, this absolutely, categorically, did not happen.

Funny, because that's where I saw it first. They even showed a second video of the kid's sister. I guess I imagined it.

As your entire post is based on inaccuracies there is no point discussing it.

Oh no, please don't say you won't discuss it! What can I do to change your mind?

I'm joking.
 
Last edited:
Your question presumes that "the media" (infotainment industry) is acting not as self-serving rational actors in a capitalist system looking to sell advertisements/viewers, but as agents of morality. This is a flawed assumption, like asking if penis-enlargement pill internet spam is conducive to human health and social well-being.

The media is not satisfied with vilifying teenage girls working at fast-food restaurants, now it has small children in its crosshairs.

What's interesting in most of these leftist digital media companies operate at a loss. Their business model is not viable yet they are still used to target and harass civilians who committed--according to their creeds--a transgression. The real question is who is funding them and why?
 
George Soros.

Obviously.

Duh.

Perhaps you want to explain how a business operating at a loss for several decades stays in business.

Don't scoff. If you owned a muffler shop that hadn't turned a profit in 20 years you better believe you'd get some knocks on your door.
 

Back
Top Bottom