Political Correctness

[TexRex]

The line is the difference between a well moderated site based on mutual respect and one that's overly moderated with a strong influence of PC culture.

I didn't ask what the line is. I asked where it is and why it's there.

You continue to dodge the question because the power of the invocation lies in its ambiguity. If you pinpoint it, you run the risk of not being able to invoke the bogeyman as you wish.

When talking about forums it's the freedom to post. This can clearly be seen in what posts are deemed ban worthy.

You have the freedom to post until you don't, and the point at which you don't is at the discretion of forum runners.

You're asking me to define something that's, by its nature, fluid. It's easier to use examples rather than pigeonhole it into a definition.

Again, the power of the invocation lies in its ambiguity.

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

Consider this thread. As you can see from the first page alone it's a graveyard of posters who voice thoughts against an agenda.

Yeeeeaaahh...I'm done clicking cherrypicked links that you say support your argument when previous examples given did not. "That one didn't work. Try this one."

The difference is that I can post this banned opinion:

Personally I believe that if the athlete has gone through puberty as a male before they transitioned to female that they should not be allowed to compete with biological women its inherently unfair because they now have the skeletal and muscular structure of a man.

and agree with it here but can't at resetera.

And this is meaningful...how?

That is the difference I'm trying to show, or as George Carlin succinctly put it:

George Carlin also said, "Think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that." Mind you it's that half that propagates the myth of the political correctness agenda.

I love George Carlin dearly; largely because he'd have been the first person to say that he's the last person you should take seriously.

In other words, there is nuance. You can't say that because this site has rules based on respecting other users that it means it is politically correct.

You can if avoiding being disrespectful of others is cited as being in the scope of supposed political correctness (BOO!!!) and if a normative agenda is attributed to proponents of political correctness (BOO!!!).

I posit that you simply do not want to make such an allegation against the site you're actively using. This is dishonest.

You have to understand the quirks of Resetera. That poster and others were banned with a (Duration pending) notification but this was rescinded after they were banned (also just to clarify you can be banned for a certain period of time rather than permanently, as seen in my link to the trans athlete thread). Resetera, and Neogaf before the great exodus are notorious for doing this.

This in no way substantiates the invocation of political correctness (BOO!!!). Refer again to my comments regarding vindictive moderation staff.

I'm confused, are you saying the investigations into predominantely Pakistani/Bangladishi abusers weren't above board?

EDIT: Oh I think I know what you're saying - that if it was a valid investigation then nothing (especially calls of racism) would have stopped it proceeding. I must say that's a pretty naive view of the world, and contradicted by the reports from people actually involved in the cases.

Plenty of things impede investigations. Fears of being perceived as racist are not reasonable impediments.

They were negligent and they tried to explain away their negligence by invoking the ambiguous bogeyman that is political correctness (BOO!!!) and, unsurprisingly, certain individuals have latched onto the excuse like a toddler who has just discovered his penis.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Plenty of things impede investigations. Fears of being perceived as racist are not reasonable impediments.

They were negligent and they tried to explain away their negligence by invoking the ambiguous bogeyman that is political correctness (BOO!!!) and, unsurprisingly, certain individuals have latched onto the excuse like a toddler who has just discovered his penis.

Wait, what?!

You're saying the police, in multiple authorities, blamed it on race relations after the fact to cover up for another reason to not investigate to the fullest extent of the law?

Just no....


The hollow nature of such a claim is exposed by the police watchdog’s upholding of a complaint that the father of a Rotherham victim was told by a senior police officer that riots would erupt if became public knowledge that Asian men were abusing white girls. The disclosure of his comments today supports earlier claims and statements that were reported or exposed by The Times:

• Confidential 2010 report for Rotherham safeguarding children board: such crimes have “cultural characteristics . . . which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity . . . It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.”

• West Mercia chief inspector, Jan 2011: “It’s a damaging taboo. These girls are being passed around and used as meat. To stop this type of crime you need to start talking about it, but everyone’s been too scared to address the ethnicity factor . . . we need to stop being worried about the racial complication.”

• Greater Manchester police source describing abandoned 2008 child sexual exploitation investigation in Rochdale, Jan 2011: “The inquiry was crippled by misplaced fears about upsetting racial sensitivities.”

• Jun 2012: The Times reveals Rotherham council censored the report of a serious case review into the murder of a 17-year-old girl by redacting information that revealed the ethnicity of the British Pakistani men suspected of using her for sex from the age of 11.

• Jay report on Rotherham, Aug 2014: there was a widespread perception that “some senior people in the council and the police wanted to downplay the ethnic dimension . . . because it might damage community cohesion”.

• Casey report on Rotherham, Feb 2015: “People were unable to tackle race issues because they were too worried about being called racist.”

• Review of bungled Greater Manchester police inquiry, Jan 2020: “The SIO attended a meeting at GMP headquarters to discuss communications. This meeting acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men. Concerns were expressed about the risk of proactive tactics or the incitement of racial hatred.

I'm sorry, you can say that PC is a "bogeyman" and that all the hundreds of thousands of people writing about it are suffering under the same delusion but it's flat out wrong to say it didn't play a part in the investigations into child sexual abuse by predominantly Muslim grooming gangs in the UK.

 

[TexRex]

Wait, what?!

You're saying the police, in multiple authorities, blamed it on race relations after the fact to cover up for another reason to not investigate to the fullest extent of the law?

Just no....

Paywall.

The hollow nature of such a claim is exposed by the police watchdog’s upholding of a complaint that the father of a Rotherham victim was told by a senior police officer that riots would erupt if became public knowledge that Asian men were abusing white girls. The disclosure of his comments today supports earlier claims and statements that were reported or exposed by The Times:

What claim is purported to be hollow?

The bit about riots is ambiguous. Who would be rioting in the given hypoyhetical? Asian men? White girls? Those close to one group and/or the other? The general public? What would the nature of the hypothetical riots be?

At what stage of a supposed investigation is this senior officer supposed to have informed said father of this concern?

Confidential 2010 report for Rotherham safeguarding children board: such crimes have “cultural characteristics . . . which are locally sensitive in terms of diversity . . . It is imperative that suggestions of a wider cultural phenomenon are avoided.”

No one group to which "cultural characteristics" can be attributed has the market cornered on sexual exploitation, and not all members of any one group can reasonably be said to have involvement in sexual exploitation. As such, it would be simultaneously irresponsible and dishonest for anyone, particularly a law enforcement agency, to suggest a "wider cultural phenomenon."

West Mercia chief inspector, Jan 2011: “It’s a damaging taboo. These girls are being passed around and used as meat. To stop this type of crime you need to start talking about it, but everyone’s been too scared to address the ethnicity factor . . . we need to stop being worried about the racial complication.”

Citation needed re: "everyone's been too scared to address the ethnicity factor".

Furthermore, why is ethnicity a factor? Refer to my comment regarding sexual exploitation crossing over multiple groups and the failure to demonstrate total (or even anywhere near total) saturation within any prospective group.

Greater Manchester police source describing abandoned 2008 child sexual exploitation investigation in Rochdale, Jan 2011: “The inquiry was crippled by misplaced fears about upsetting racial sensitivities.”

I mean...in the absence of any evidence that an investigation was not conducted entirely above board, such fears are misplaced. I feel like that's been established.

Where are these supposed sensitivities to be upset? Are those not a part of the group of which bad actors are a part likely to use the actions of the guilty as a basis to perpetrate acts against the the innocent? In such a scenario, who would be in the wrong? Why them? What should be done about it? Why that?

Jun 2012: The Times reveals Rotherham council censored the report of a serious case review into the murder of a 17-year-old girl by redacting information that revealed the ethnicity of the British Pakistani men suspected of using her for sex from the age of 11.

When the identity of a suspected individual is known, what is the significance of the ethnicity of anyone who perpetrates an act against another? What is the ethnicity of the 17-year-old girl? Is that more or less significant? Why?

Jay report on Rotherham, Aug 2014: there was a widespread perception that “some senior people in the council and the police wanted to downplay the ethnic dimension . . . because it might damage community cohesion”.

What the actual ****?

How many times removed can you get? A perception of others' desires? Seriously? You're joking, right?

Is there an internal memorandum that can be cited here? Or is it all feelings?

And again, what is the significance of the "ethnic dimension"?

Casey report on Rotherham, Feb 2015: “People were unable to tackle race issues because they were too worried about being called racist.”

*cough*

If an above-board investigation legitimately points to "ethnic" perpetrators, it'll stand up to accusations of racism. If it's not above-board and/or it doesn't legitimately point to "ethnic" perpetrators, it won't stand up to accusations of racism. If it stands up to those accusations, those accusations are then absurd.

It's not a legitimate concern.

And yet again, how is sexual exploitation a race issue?

Review of bungled Greater Manchester police inquiry, Jan 2020: “The SIO attended a meeting at GMP headquarters to discuss communications. This meeting acknowledged that the enquiry was sensitive due to the involvement of Asian men. Concerns were expressed about the risk of proactive tactics or the incitement of racial hatred.

What proactive tactics? Some are more prone to risk than others. Abundant police presence--particularly in areas occupied by groups likely to view the presence as threatening and/or indicative of persecution--has the potential to incite a violent response.

And again, who is in the wrong with regards to racial hatred?

I'm sorry, you can say that PC is a "bogeyman" and that all the hundreds of thousands of people writing about it are suffering under the same delusion but it's flat out wrong to say it didn't play a part in the investigations into child sexual abuse by predominantly Muslim grooming gangs in the UK.

So you're not even going to pretend to establish what makes one thing political correctness (BOO!!!) and not another as you invoke it?

It seems as though someone, at some point, played an awful, awful, awful trick on you by convincing you of the existence of this phantom menace*, and now they're likely having quite the laugh at your expense.

*As it happens, it's just as hackneyed as the installment of the Star Wars franchise that bears that name.

Aaaaand again, what is the significance of these being predominantly (not even exclusively) Muslim perpetrators when so many non-Muslim perpetrators exist? I realize these threads can get sort of mashed together, but does it need to be pointed out to you that this isn't the Islam thread? You've demonstrated a propensity to want to point the finger at Muslims, not only on your current account but also on what is believed to be your previous, presently banned account, and I'm curious why that is.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Paywall.


What claim is purported to be hollow?

The bit about riots is ambiguous. Who would be rioting in the given hypoyhetical? Asian men? White girls? Those close to one group and/or the other? The general public? What would the nature of the hypothetical riots be?

At what stage of a supposed investigation is this senior officer supposed to have informed said father of this concern?


No one group to which "cultural characteristics" can be attributed has the market cornered on sexual exploitation, and not all members of any one group can reasonably be said to have involvement in sexual exploitation. As such, it would be simultaneously irresponsible and dishonest for anyone, particularly a law enforcement agency, to suggest a "wider cultural phenomenon."


Citation needed re: "everyone's been too scared to address the ethnicity factor".

Furthermore, why is ethnicity a factor? Refer to my comment regarding sexual exploitation crossing over multiple groups and the failure to demonstrate total (or even anywhere near total) saturation within any prospective group.


I mean...in the absence of any evidence that an investigation was not conducted entirely above board, such fears are misplaced. I feel like that's been established.

Where are these supposed sensitivities to be upset? Are those not a part of the group of which bad actors are a part likely to use the actions of the guilty as a basis to perpetrate acts against the the innocent? In such a scenario, who would be in the wrong? Why them? What should be done about it? Why that?


When the identity of a suspected individual is known, what is the significance of the ethnicity of anyone who perpetrates an act against another? What is the ethnicity of the 17-year-old girl? Is that more or less significant? Why?


What the actual ****?

How many times removed can you get? A perception of others' desires? Seriously? You're joking, right?

Is there an internal memorandum that can be cited here? Or is it all feelings?

And again, what is the significance of the "ethnic dimension"?


*cough*


It's not a legitimate concern.

And yet again, how is sexual exploitation a race issue?


What proactive tactics? Some are more prone to risk than others. Abundant police presence--particularly in areas occupied by groups likely to view the presence as threatening and/or indicative of persecution--has the potential to incite a violent response.

And again, who is in the wrong with regards to racial hatred?

All the italicised points were taken directly from The Times article by Andrew Norfolk (I can't copy/paste the whole article), so you're essentially arguing against the Times's investigative journalists (who led the way in the UK press in exposing the issues with the primarily Muslim grooming gangs, particularly in Rotherham).

* The "hollow claim" paragraph was preceded by this:

Police forces, local authorities and child protection charities initially denied that ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men. Then they took a new line that whatever their past faults, concerns about ethnic and cultural sensitivities played no role in their failure to acknowledge and tackle such offending

The IOPC ruling is covered here and originally here

So you're not even going to pretend to establish what makes one thing political correctness (BOO!!!) and not another as you invoke it?

View attachment 913731

It seems as though someone, at some point, played an awful, awful, awful trick on you by convincing you of the existence of this phantom menace*, and now they're likely having quite the laugh at your expense.

But you're being given a concrete example of political correctness and still refusing to accept that it exists - I'm not sure how a line in the sand will help??

Taking the example further, we had a politician (Labour) who spoke out in an article in The Sun about the primarily Muslim grooming gangs and another (also Labour) who liked and retweeted a tweet saying

‘Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.’

Can you guess which one had death threats and was punished by the Labour party and which one has recently been given a shadow ministerial role?

(Boo indeed)

Aaaaand again, what is the significance of these being predominantly (not even exclusively) Muslim perpetrators when so many non-Muslim perpetrators exist?

I realize these threads can get sort of mashed together, but does it need to be pointed out to you that this isn't the Islam thread? You've demonstrated a propensity to want to point the finger at Muslims, not only on your current account but also on what is believed to be your previous, presently banned account, and I'm curious why that is.

We're talking about political correctness in this thread - that can encompass how people act because of sensitivities to things like race/religion.

My advice would be to just take the L on this one issue and argue instead about the overuse of invoking "PC" or "PC culture" because it's pretty well known in the UK that grooming gangs proliferated at least in part because of political correctness.

 

[UKMikey]

The police weren't too concerned about (this definition of) political correctness when they were enacting the racial profiling policies in the seventies and eighties which led to the Brixton riots. It sounds like the pendulum had swung the other way at the time of Rotherham where it was one of a number of causes that led to the scandal yet seemed to be the only one that the right wing press jumped upon if my brief glimpses of the paywalled articles at the Times and Telegraph is correct.

I'm not sure that makes it a good idea to abandon the idea of respect for other social groupings if that's what political correctness is supposed to be. In everyday life I still believe that this does no harm to anyone and have yet to see proof to the contrary that not being PC makes things better outside of these specialised instances. It seems to me that that might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[TexRex]

All the italicised points were taken directly from The Times article by Andrew Norfolk (I can't copy/paste the whole article), so you're essentially arguing against the Times's investigative journalists (who led the way in the UK press in exposing the issues with the primarily Muslim grooming gangs, particularly in Rotherham).

This is a non-answer.

You provided the italicized points in support of an argument you're trying to make. I addressed each and every one of them reasonably, even asking for more from you on each and every one of them (because you're the one using them here, and not Andrew Norfolk or any other investigative journalists), because there are issues with each and every one of them.

Police forces, local authorities and child protection charities initially denied that ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men.

They were correct to. "Ethnicity" can be attributed to literally anyone*, and therefore to anyone involved in sexual exploitation.

*

Taking the example further, we had a politician (Labour) who spoke out in an article in The Sun about the primarily Muslim grooming gangs and another (also Labour) who liked and retweeted a tweet saying

‘Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.’

What does this even mean? Er...other than that you put entirely too much stock in "likes" on social media, as you have already demonstrated on this forum. I can't even fathom the state you drive yourself into looking at the bottom of others' posts here.

Can you guess which one had death threats and was punished by the Labour party and which one has recently been given a shadow ministerial role?

Boris Johnson and Tony Blair, respectively? Or vise versa? I don't know too many politicians over there, but those are a couple I've heard of.

Ohhhhhh, I'm probably meant to click the links you've provided as they supposedly illustrate a point you're trying to make but haven't bothered to make otherwise. It seems like we've done this already.

Christ on a bike, you're like the ones who post videos in lieu of making an argument into which you put actual thought.

But you're being given a concrete example of political correctness and still refusing to accept that it exists - I'm not sure how a line in the sand will help??

There are no concrete examples without concrete definitions.

(Ooooohh, I'm going to put that one in the brain bank. It's a good'n.)

We're talking about political correctness in this thread - that can encompass how people act because of sensitivities to things like race/religion.

I see. I'll ask again, then.

What sensitivities to race/religion, specifically Islam and Muslims, do you have that result in you acting toward that subject matter in the manner that you do here? Because apparently that's political correctness and I'm given to understand it's a bad thing, supposing those who are inclined to invoke it are observed.

My advice would be to just take the L on this one issue

How's that?

and argue instead about the overuse of invoking "PC" or "PC culture"

That's what I'm doing. It does get invoked entirely too often and by people who are incapable of making a compelling argument. If I'm honest, I get the impression that it's an "everything I don't like is __[insert_label]__" sort of thing.

because it's pretty well known in the UK that grooming gangs proliferated at least in part because of political correctness.

Really? I'd no idea the gaslighting was so rampant over there.

 

[HenrySwanson]

They were correct to. "Ethnicity" can be attributed to literally anyone*, and therefore to anyone involved in sexual exploitation.

I mean if you're not even accepting that this was incorrect, when even the police forces changed their stance then what is the point?

From the Independent:

As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten.

 

[TexRex]

I mean if you're not even accepting that this was incorrect, when even the police forces changed their stance then what is the point?

From the Independent:

As a teenager, I was taken to various houses and flats above takeaways in the north of England, to be beaten, tortured and raped over 100 times. I was called a “white slag” and “white ****” as they beat me.

They made it clear that because I was a non-Muslim, and not a virgin, and because I didn’t dress “modestly”, that they believed I deserved to be “punished”. They said I had to “obey” or be beaten.

You don't seem to be getting that it isn't religion that motivates people to commit such acts, but extremism without want for an adjective, even if individuals such as yourself may want to attribute to it an adjective. Extremists are going to go to extreme lengths; it's what makes them extremists.

Islam isn't the only ideology that puts emphasis on the concept of purity, where an individual is deemed to be impure if they have engaged in sexual activity (and good old misogyny tends to rear its ugly head here), or at the very least if they have done so without meeting certain other requirements. The concept of purity or virtue is also generally (if strangely) viewed as objectively "good," and so the supposed lack of goodness is an obvious nail to hit when engaging in verbal abuse.

When my daughter was in high school, her best friend was completely cut out of her immediate family when her Christian parents discovered she'd lost her virginity. I maintain this was an extreme reaction. Though the emphasis on virginity may have been founded upon religious belief, it wasn't religion that made her parents do what they did.

She was a great kid and actually stayed with us for almost a month not long after her aunt and uncle took her in because her aunt had health issues that put her in the hospital and there'd be nobody home to care for her. Mind you she was just 16 when this all went down.

The saddest part of that whole situation was her fraternal twin brother spiralling out of control and getting drunk one night before taking a family SUV out for a spin that ended in his death and the death of a 26-year-old mother of two who was driving home from work.

But I digress.

Islam isn't the only ideology that puts emphasis on itself either, and highlighting a perceived difference is also common in verbal abuse. If one individual is "something" that another is not, you can be fairly certain that the difference is going to be weaponized as a part of this dynamic. It isn't religion or ethnicity that does this.

In this vein, I'd argue that it isn't religion (or "ethnicity") that causes pederasty in the priesthood, rather people with those desires given the opportunity to act on them. It also isn't religion (or "ethnicity") that causes these priests to be moved around to avoid detection, rather people in power wishing to stay in power.

The takeaway here is that correlation between ideology and extremism does not imply causation. It is in this way that the officials were correct to deny that "ethnicity" (this is not meaningful) was a factor in the grooming for sexual exploitation. Perhaps you ought to look at the gang dynamic before "ethnicity," as illicit activity does seem to be a common theme in gangs across all cultures.

Now how about those other points on which you've opted to not elaborate?

You provided the italicized points in support of an argument you're trying to make. I addressed each and every one of them reasonably, even asking for more from you on each and every one of them (because you're the one using them here, and not Andrew Norfolk or any other investigative journalists), because there are issues with each and every one of them.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You don't seem to be getting that it isn't religion that motivates people to commit such acts, but extremism without want for an adjective, even if individuals such as yourself may want to attribute to it an adjective. Extremists are going to go to extreme lengths; it's what makes them extremists.

Islam isn't the only ideology that puts emphasis on the concept of purity, where an individual is deemed to be impure if they have engaged in sexual activity (and good old misogyny tends to rear its ugly head here), or at the very least if they have done so without meeting certain other requirements. The concept of purity or virtue is also generally (if strangely) viewed as objectively "good," and so the supposed lack of goodness is an obvious nail to hit when engaging in verbal abuse.

When my daughter was in high school, her best friend was completely cut out of her immediate family when her Christian parents discovered she'd lost her virginity. I maintain this was an extreme reaction. Though the emphasis on virginity may have been founded upon religious belief, it wasn't religion that made her parents do what they did.

She was a great kid and actually stayed with us for almost a month not long after her aunt and uncle took her in because her aunt had health issues that put her in the hospital and there'd be nobody home to care for her. Mind you she was just 16 when this all went down.

The saddest part of that whole situation was her fraternal twin brother spiralling out of control and getting drunk one night before taking a family SUV out for a spin that ended in his death and the death of a 26-year-old mother of two who was driving home from work.

But I digress.

Islam isn't the only ideology that puts emphasis on itself either, and highlighting a perceived difference is also common in verbal abuse. If one individual is "something" that another is not, you can be fairly certain that the difference is going to be weaponized as a part of this dynamic. It isn't religion or ethnicity that does this.

In this vein, I'd argue that it isn't religion (or "ethnicity") that causes pederasty in the priesthood, rather people with those desires given the opportunity to act on them. It also isn't religion (or "ethnicity") that causes these priests to be moved around to avoid detection, rather people in power wishing to stay in power.

The takeaway here is that correlation between ideology and extremism does not imply causation. It is in this way that the officials were correct to deny that "ethnicity" (this is not meaningful) was a factor in the grooming for sexual exploitation. Perhaps you ought to look at the gang dynamic before "ethnicity," as illicit activity does seem to be a common theme in gangs across all cultures.

Now how about those other points on which you've opted to not elaborate?

The post isn't trying to score points by saying "Islam is uniquely bad" in this regard - rather it's showing how the police force denied that "ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men".

They then changed their stance.

I can't see how, after reading the testimony of an actual victim you can claim otherwise (both that they changed stance or that ethnicity played a role).

TBH it's like claiming ethnicity had no relevance in the rapes and murders of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians.

 

[TexRex]

The post isn't trying to score points by saying "Islam is uniquely bad" in this regard - rather it's showing how the police force denied that "ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men".

They were correct to do so.

They then changed their stance.

Did they? You said:

Police forces, local authorities and child protection charities initially denied that ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men. Then they took a new line that whatever their past faults, concerns about ethnic and cultural sensitivities played no role in their failure to acknowledge and tackle such offending

Whether it's accurate or not, the latter doesn't actually overwrite the former. Did they withdraw the former when they "took a new line"? Your citation cuts out abruptly and doesn't address this, but if they did, I'd suggest they were incorrect to do so.

What part of this "they changed their stance" narrative relates to political correctness (BOO!!!), anyway? It's not covered in the Wikipedia entry and strikes me as subject to the ambiguity of the invocation upon which you're so dependant.

I can't see how, after reading the testimony of an actual victim you can claim otherwise (both that they changed stance or that ethnicity played a role).

For the life of me, I don't see any mention of this change in stance in her piece. Perhaps you could highlight it specifically?

She does, however, address the latter:

The problem isn’t the text itself; it’s how it’s fundamentally interpreted.

Individuals twist the words of others to justify the extreme acts they wish to perpetrate. Indeed, individuals twist those words to aid in coercing others to perpetrate extreme acts. "Ethnicity" plays no role in this, as it isn't meaningful. Again...do have a look at the gang dynamic.

TBH it's like claiming ethnicity had no relevance in the rapes and murders of Bosnian Muslims by Serbian Christians.

It didn't. "Othering" did. "Othering" plays a key role when individuals who identify as being part of one group perpetrate extreme acts against individuals they identify as being part of another group. These acts may include military action; they often do, actually. The difference itself isn't meaningful.

I'm not attempting to defend the acts of Muslims and you'll find it difficult to stymie me or any supposed agenda of the sort by bringing up instances in which Muslims are those against whom extreme acts are perpetrated. I'm not viewing adherents to any ideology more favorably than adherents to any other ideology.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It didn't. "Othering" did. "Othering" plays a key role when individuals who identify as being part of one group perpetrate extreme acts against individuals they identify as being part of another group. These acts may include military action; they often do, actually. The difference itself isn't meaningful.

But....that's what ethnic violence is.

I mean, consider the remarks of a rapist in another jurisdiction:

After the final trial ended yesterday, 17 men aged from 25 to 44 had been convicted of sex and drug offences. Their contempt for those they abused was made plain by Badrul Hussain, 37, found guilty of four drug offences. Caught travelling without a ticket on the Tyne and Wear Metro in 2014, he gave a female ticket inspector his opinion of her worth: “White women are good for only one thing — for people like me to **** and use as trash.”

For goodness sake man, it's literally a member of one ethnic group expressing their disapproval for another and acting in a way that mirrors those beliefs.

That is why I'm not really addressing your other points in this thread since you're refusing to accept the blindingly obvious.

 

[TexRex]

But....that's what ethnic violence is.

This isn't meaningful. All violence perpetrated by individuals, either individually or as part of a group, is "ethnic" violence. "Ethnicity" may be attributed to everyone, and isn't meaningful as a result.

I mean, consider the remarks of a rapist in another jurisdiction:

After the final trial ended yesterday, 17 men aged from 25 to 44 had been convicted of sex and drug offences. Their contempt for those they abused was made plain by Badrul Hussain, 37, found guilty of four drug offences. Caught travelling without a ticket on the Tyne and Wear Metro in 2014, he gave a female ticket inspector his opinion of her worth: “White women are good for only one thing — for people like me to **** and use as trash.”

It's a rapist attempting to justify actions which are unjustifiable. Garbage argument is garbage.

For goodness sake man, it's literally a member of one ethnic group expressing their disapproval for another and acting in a way that mirrors those beliefs.

And every single adherent to a particular ideology who doesn't perpetrate acts of violence supposedly founded upon said ideology demonstrates that the ideology isn't the cause of those acts, but a mere correlation. You do so seem to have difficulty grasping the difference.

That is why I'm not really addressing your other points in this thread since you're refusing to accept the blindingly obvious.

You're unable to craft a compelling argument and you're trying to pin the blame on me. This is dishonest. Also, you've demonstrated a propensity to disregard arguments that you're unable to address as it relates to the narrative onto which you've latched. This is nothing new. Blaming others for this is dishonest.

I expect more of you. Wait...no, I don't.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You're unable to craft a compelling argument and you're trying to pin the blame on me. This is dishonest. Also, you've demonstrated a propensity to disregard arguments that you're unable to address as it relates to the narrative onto which you've latched. This is nothing new. Blaming others for this is dishonest.

I expect more of you. Wait...no, I don't.

Just so we're clear then, because I apparently can't construct a compelling argument:

PC culture played no part in the investigation of these rapes, despite police officers admitting race/religious relations did play a part and the IOPC ruling that they did....

Racism played no part in the crimes, despite a victim's testimony that she was called racially derogatory names while being abused and a perpetrator independently confirmed to have said racially derogatory comments....

You've got to see this from my side - if I'm arguing against this steadfast refusal to accept these truths then what is the point acknowledging the other arguments about political correctness?

And you call me dishonest?

I'll try again using accepted definitions to see if I can make any headway:

Google definition of political correctness:

The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

The Times article:

Race fears stopped us acting, victim’s father told

 

[TexRex]

Just so we're clear then, because I apparently can't construct a compelling argument:

PC culture played no part in the investigation of these rapes, despite police officers admitting race/religious relations did play a part and the IOPC ruling that they did....

This narrative doesn't even hold up to the definition of "political correctness" (BOO!!!) you provided in this very post. Mind you the definition itself is most definitely not without flaw, and I'll address that in a moment, but it's useful here.

"The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

If an investigation legitimately points to perpetrators who are members of a group or groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against, it will hold up to the perception that the perpetrators (and by virtue, the group) are being excluded, marginalized or insulted. Moreover, it will hold up to the perception that action against the perpetrators constitutes or is motivated by discrimination.

If the investigation does not legitimately point to perpetrators who are members of a group or groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against, it will not hold up to the perception that the perpetrators (and by virtue, the group) are being excluded, marginalized or insulted. Moreover, it calls into question the conduct and impartiality of the investigating party.

This is not an excuse that anyone should accept.

Racism played no part in the crimes, despite a victim's testimony that she was called racially derogatory names while being abused and a perpetrator independently confirmed to have said racially derogatory comments....

Yeeeeaaahh...I'm gonna need you to quote me as having said racism played no part. Wait...you can't. But that would mean you've misrepresented my remarks as something you can more easily criticize. This is dishonest.

You've got to see this from my side - if I'm arguing against this steadfast refusal to accept these truths then what is the point acknowledging the other arguments about political correctness?

You're unable to craft a compelling argument and you're trying to pin the blame on me. This is dishonest. Also, you've demonstrated a propensity to disregard arguments that you're unable to address as it relates to the narrative onto which you've latched. This is nothing new. Blaming others for this is dishonest.

Aaaaand you're doubling down.

And you call me dishonest?

Translation: "no u"

I referred to the tactics you're employing as dishonest, but not until after I highlighted them specifically.

One does wonder, however, just what sort of person would demonstrate such a propensity to employ these sorts of tactics in discussion.

I'll try again using accepted definitions to see if I can make any headway:

Google definition of political correctness:

The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

I had to laugh when I first read that, as it really just seems to be saying "the avoidance of discrimination against the discriminated against." The Department of Redundancy Department approves.

Once my mirth subsided, I couldn't help but notice it doesn't mention the normative agenda that you alleged when citing action by Resetera against a user for a comment they made, but which didn't seem to be "political correctness" (BOO!!!) at all, rather what seemed to be inappropriate action by a vindictive member of the moderation staff. Then you refused to acknowledge that this very site is party to such an agenda, despite a code of conduct that explicitly prohibits attacks against any individual or group, presumably under threat of having posting privileges revoked. You gave no reasonable explanation as to why "political correctness" (BOO!!!) applied to one and not the other.

The Times article:

Race fears stopped us acting, victim’s father told

If an investigation legitimately points to perpetrators of a particular "race" (this isn't meaningful), it will hold up to allegations or concerns that members of that particular race are being discriminated against.

This is not an excuse that anyone should accept.

...

I wait with bated breath to see just how little of my post you respond to, your strawman arguments having collapsed under the weight of their stupidity.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This narrative doesn't even hold up to the definition of "political correctness" (BOO!!!) you provided in this very post. Mind you the definition itself is most definitely not without flaw, and I'll address that in a moment, but it's useful here.

"The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

If an investigation legitimately points to perpetrators who are members of a group or groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against, it will hold up to the perception that the perpetrators (and by virtue, the group) are being excluded, marginalized or insulted. Moreover, it will hold up to the perception that action against the perpetrators constitutes or is motivated by discrimination.

If the investigation does not legitimately point to perpetrators who are members of a group or groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against, it will not hold up to the perception that the perpetrators (and by virtue, the group) are being excluded, marginalized or insulted. Moreover, it calls into question the conduct and impartiality of the investigating party.

This is not an excuse that anyone should accept.

The issue is not that there was an investigation against a marginalised group motivated by discrimination. Rather, it is that there was a lack of investigation/action partly because of the perpetrators belonging to a "marginalised group".

You've come to the conclusion that they didn't investigate because they didn't have a legitimate reason and have disregarded evidence from the victims, the police, those involved with the councils, and the IOPC that the appearance of being racist actually did play a role since, you deduce, if it were all above board it would stand up to the scrutiny of those crying racism based solely on its merits.

Yeeeeaaahh...I'm gonna need you to quote me as having said racism played no part.

Wait...you can't. But that would mean you've misrepresented my remarks as something you can more easily criticize. This is dishonest.

Err..ok

In response to:

The post isn't trying to score points by saying "Islam is uniquely bad" in this regard - rather it's showing how the police force denied that "ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men"

you replied:

They were correct to do so.

I had to laugh when I first read that, as it really just seems to be saying "the avoidance of discrimination against the discriminated against." The Department of Redundancy Department approves.

Ahhh this explains a lot.

It doesn't actually mean that, and it's a small but crucial distinction.

Rather than the avoidance of discrimination, it is avoiding anything that appears to negatively affect groups.

I'll use the examples of the two MPs again:

Taking the example further, we had a politician (Labour) who spoke out in an article in The Sun about the primarily Muslim grooming gangs and another (also Labour) who liked and retweeted a tweet saying

‘Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.’

What does this even mean? Er...other than that you put entirely too much stock in "likes" on social media, as you have already demonstrated on this forum. I can't even fathom the state you drive yourself into looking at the bottom of others' posts here

Sarah Champion's article articulates how we have a problem with British Pakistanis in grooming gangs. She doesn't discriminate against the gangs on the basis of race. Instead she highlights their background.

The reaction however, if you bothered to look instead of saying:

Boris Johnson and Tony Blair, respectively? Or vise versa? I don't know too many politicians over there, but those are a couple I've heard of.

Ohhhhhh, I'm probably meant to click the links you've provided as they supposedly illustrate a point you're trying to make but haven't bothered to make otherwise. It seems like we've done this already.

Christ on a bike, you're like the ones who post videos in lieu of making an argument into which you put actual thought.

is that she is punished by her own political party. This is an example of political correctness - she expressed a view that could be interpreted as marginilizing a disadvantaged group.

Meanwhile someone who has been suspended for anti-semitic tweets, and likes and retweets a tweet saying abuse victims should shut their mouths for the good of diversity is made a shadow minister for "community cohesion" (you couldn't make it up )

EDIT: I was going to ask whether you had a problem with the definition of political correctness or The Times' attribution of at least part of the lack of investigation on race fears but it seems you believe both are wrong. You can see my dilemma as both are universally recognised to be correct.

EDIT 2: I'm going to add a section from The Times about what the Muslim former chief crown prosecutor said about the Rochdale grooming gang (yes, another grooming gang). I believe it to be the most balanced take so far (I really recommend a short subscription to The Times to check out the full article and others):

After the official report into the Rochdale grooming affair, Afzal was wary of endorsing its suggestion, echoed by the home secretary at the time, Theresa May, that political correctness had contributed to the delay in prosecuting gangs of Asian Muslims grooming white girls. He still maintains that this was mainly opportunity meeting vulnerability, that the night-time economy of minicabs and takeaways was dominated by Asians. Of course, ethnicity was an issue but the victims were not all white. He later prosecuted the Rochdale ringleader for abusing a girl from his own background.

Yet in the book he does attack the excesses and shibboleths of multiculturalism: “We had become a society that focused on difference, not what we wanted to share… Instead of building stronger bonds we were creating an environment in which it was deemed normal to turn a blind eye to honour crimes, forced marriage and female genital mutilation in the name of cultural diversity.”

I wonder if it is easier to speak out now that he no longer works for the CPS.

“I’ve got no fear about talking about multiculturalism. It’s clearly a force for good, but sometimes it’s let some people do what they want to do rather than say, ‘Hang on a minute: we’ve got laws to apply and, additionally, we’ve got values that we have to stand up for.’ To my mind it was something that people failed on. There were people in positions of responsibility who decided that they would turn a blind eye because they did not want to cause trouble.”

You can see their point, I say. Intervention might affect police-community relations and give fodder to right-wing racists.

“Yes, they do exploit these types of crimes but Andrew Norfolk, your colleague, once said, ‘Nazir, why is it that you always pick subjects that are a stick to beat members of your own community with?’ My response was, ‘That’s because we should be carrying our own stick.’ There is no doubt in my mind that 98, 99 per cent of Muslim communities, south Asian communities, the minority community, detest these men with a vengeance. Sadly, some white people in authority decided that they did not want to get involved because they made an assumption that the whole community was behind these guys. In fact it was the exact opposite. These men were also targeting Asian girls. The communities were as desperate for something to be done as the rest of us. For whatever reason, the authorities took the view that they’d rather not kick that hornets’ nest.”

 

[TexRex]

The issue is not that there was an investigation against a marginalised group motivated by discrimination.

I didn't say it is. Stop misrepresenting what I've said.

Or...is it that you're just incredibly thick?

Rather, it is that there was a lack of investigation/action partly because of the perpetrators belonging to a "marginalised group".

You've come to the conclusion that they didn't investigate because they didn't have a legitimate reason and have disregarded evidence from the victims, the police, those involved with the councils, and the IOPC that the appearance of being racist actually did play a role since, you deduce, if it were all above board it would stand up to the scrutiny of those crying racism based solely on its merits.

Excusing the decision to not investigate by invoking fears of being accused of discriminatory action is not acceptable. As I said, if the investigation legitimately points to perpetrators, such an accusation will easily be shown to be unfounded.

Err..ok

In response to:

The post isn't trying to score points by saying "Islam is uniquely bad" in this regard - rather it's showing how the police force denied that "ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men"

you replied:

They were correct to do so.

Nope.

In response to:

The post isn't trying to score points by saying "Islam is uniquely bad" in this regard - rather it's showing how the police force denied that "ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men".

I replied:

They were correct to do so.

There's a subtle but important distinction.

"Ethnicity" (this isn't meaningful) doesn't play a role in sexual exploitation. That sexual exploitation crosses "ethnicity" is enough to demonstrate as much. That those to whom "ethnicity" may be applied (which is everyone, and as a result is why it isn't meaningful) don't engage in sexual exploitation only reinforces the notion that it doesn't play a role.

Ahhh this explains a lot.

It doesn't actually mean that, and it's a small but crucial distinction.

Rather than the avoidance of discrimination, it is avoiding anything that appears to negatively affect groups.

And reasonable justification for expression and/or action will hold up against that appearance. If the expression and/or action isn't reasonably justified, it may not.

I'll use the examples of the two MPs again:

[snip]

Sarah Champion's article articulates how we have a problem with British Pakistanis in grooming gangs. She doesn't discriminate against the gangs on the basis of race. Instead she highlights their background.

Members of the gangs being British Pakistanis isn't meaningful as it's not why they're involved in sexual exploitation. Rather, the individuals being members of gangs is much more meaningful, as illicit, illegal and even abhorrent behavior is frequently part and parcel with the gang dynamic. As such, highlighting the background isn't reasonably justified.

The reaction however, if you bothered to look instead of saying:

[snip]

is that she is punished by her own political party. This is an example of political correctness - she expressed a view that could be interpreted as marginilizing a disadvantaged group.

Punishment was appropriate as the remarks weren't reasonably justified. Supposed "political correctness" (BOO!!!) doesn't enter into it.

Meanwhile someone who has been suspended for anti-semitic tweets...

Interesting (but not at all surprising) that you'd withhold information to later spring it on whom you deem to be your adversary. This is dishonest.

However, I clicked your little linky-poo and, well, such an accusation is idiotic.

In a Facebook post in 2014, before she became an MP, Ms Shah shared a graphic showing an image of Israel's outline superimposed on a map of the US under the headline "Solution for Israel-Palestine conflict - relocate Israel into United States", with the comment "problem solved".

The post was brought to light by the Guido Fawkes website, which also highlighted a post in which she appeared to liken Israeli policies to those of Hitler.

Anti-Semitism is expression and action against Jewish people for their...erm...Jewish-ness. Criticism of the State of Israel's policies, such as the governent's actions against Palestine and highlighting the incestuous relationship with the United States [Edit to add the following] is not anti-Semitism [end edit].

Proponents of such policies tend to invoke the bogeyman that is anti-Semitism (BOO!!!) in an effort to shut down criticism. This very tactic could be witnessed on this very forum when @DDastardly00 suggested that a Congresswoman's remarks about the United States' relationship with Israel (a relationship that represents an obscene amount of money) being "all about the Benjamins" was anti-Semitic, presumably founded upon the stereotype that Jews are supposedly "money-grubby".

Of course this isn't to say that anti-Semitism is never present in the criticism of the State of Israel, because it is, however frequently, which is unfortunate because I often don't approve of the State of Israel's policies and, at the very same time, I abhor anti-Semitism. Mind you I don't feel any particular way about Jewish people as a whole, but there are individuals for whom I care very deeply and their beliefs as adherents to Judaism have no bearing. I'd much rather critics of the State of Israel didn't resort to anti-Semitism.

Also, equating policies of the State of Israel to those of the Third Reich is very much not anti-Semitism. It literally cannot be. It's commonly referred to as "Reductio ad Hitlerum" or "Reductio ad Nazium".

...and likes and retweets a tweet saying abuse victims should shut their mouths for the good of diversity...

What does this even mean?

Does liking and retweeting mean she said it herself? Why or why not?

Can it mean anything else? Why or why not?

What happened to the author of the original tweet? Do you feel the action (or lack thereof) was justified? Why or why not?

Why do you place so much importance on "likes" and "retweets", as you've even demonstrated on this very forum? You actually pointed out an individual having "liked" another post as an argument against the remarks of that individual rather than addressing the "liked" post. This is idiotic.

...is made a shadow minister for "community cohesion" (you couldn't make it up )

I question the need for such a role, the individual who occupies it notwithstanding.

If individuals or groups act against members of groups (or groups as a whole) that they deem to be "other", they should be prosecuted. If members of groups wish to reach out to members of "other" groups in the spirit of cohesion...well, that's fantastic.

EDIT: I was going to ask whether you had a problem with the definition of political correctness or The Times' attribution of at least part of the lack of investigation on race fears but it seems you believe both are wrong.

I have a problem with the ambiguity of the invocation as well as the inconsistency with which it is invoked.

I've also repeatedly addressed The Times' attribution, and you've repeatedly cherrypicked and strawmanned my remarks. The latter is dishonest. I'd argue (and have done so not in so few words) that the former is as well.

You can see my dilemma as both are universally recognised to be correct.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

[Edit to add latin where it had been neglected.]

 

[HenrySwanson]

I didn't say it is. Stop misrepresenting what I've said.

Or...is it that you're just incredibly thick?

Sigh....

Asked simply:

Why exactly, then, is it wrong to say parties weren't investigated and charged to the fullest extent of the law partly because they belonged to a certain ethnic group and the investigating party didn't want to appear racist?

In response to:

The post isn't trying to score points by saying "Islam is uniquely bad" in this regard - rather it's showing how the police force denied that "ethnicity had any relevance to the grooming of vulnerable girls by organised groups of men".

I replied:

They were correct to do so.

There's a subtle but important distinction.

"Ethnicity" (this isn't meaningful) doesn't play a role in sexual exploitation. That sexual exploitation crosses "ethnicity" is enough to demonstrate as much. That those to whom "ethnicity" may be applied (which is everyone, and as a result is why it isn't meaningful) don't engage in sexual exploitation only reinforces the notion that it doesn't play a role.

It should have read in the targeting of individuals (which is backed up by the victims' testimonies). I didn't mean to imply that people rape becuase of their ethnicity (the fault is mine in not making this clear) but I'm unsure on your position and now that I'm rectifying it I'm asking:

Do you think the victims' different ethnicity to their perpetrators played a role in these crimes.

Members of the gangs being British Pakistanis isn't meaningful as it's not why they're involved in sexual exploitation. Rather, the individuals being members of gangs is much more meaningful, as illicit, illegal and even abhorrent behavior is frequently part and parcel with the gang dynamic. As such, highlighting the background isn't reasonably justified.

Let's take it back to basics and go from there:

Are the members majority British Pakistani?

Is it wrong to highlight this?

Punishment was appropriate as the remarks weren't reasonably justified. Supposed "political correctness" (BOO!!!) doesn't enter into it.

We've got our answer ladies and gentlemen!

You've said it's wrong to highlight that the gang members were British Pakistani as - according to you - this plays no part in the formation of the gang nor their targeting of victims belonging to a group despite the fact that the perpetrators have made racist remarks against victims and the group they belong to.

Yes, I could understand if it was limited to one instance (but even then, if the perpetrators were caught saying racially disparaging remarks about the victims (which they were in this case) it still may make sense). But would it be wrong to highlight that it is majority Muslim Pakistani/Bangledeshi men that have been convicted of grooming in:

Telford

Oxford

Rotherham

Rochdale

Manchester

Newcastle

Ayelesbury

Bristol

Peterborough

Keighley

Sheffield

?

Frankly such a stance would be ridiculous as

1) you're saying profiling should be limited if it comes up with uncomfortable conclusions.
2) you're advocating for PC sanctions while maintaining it's some great bogeyman.

I think you need to take a serious look in particular at this last point and see how absurd it is that you think someone shouldn't be allowed to report that the UK has a problem with grooming gangs made up of a majority of a certain ethnic group.

It's called pattern recognition.

It's like censoring/punishing someone for saying the world has a problem with Catholic paedophiles.

Interesting (but not at all surprising) that you'd withhold information to later spring it on whom you deem to be your adversary. This is dishonest.

However, I clicked your little linky-poo and, well, such an accusation is idiotic.

Anti-Semitism is expression and action against Jewish people for their...erm...Jewish-ness. Criticism of the State of Israel's policies, such as the governent's actions against Palestine and highlighting the incestuous relationship with the United States.

Proponents of such policies tend to invoke the bogeyman that is anti-Semitism (BOO!!!) in an effort to shut down criticism. This very tactic could be witnessed on this very forum when @DDastardly00 suggested that a Congresswoman's remarks about the United States' relationship with Israel (a relationship that represents an obscene amount of money) being "all about the Benjamins" was anti-Semitic, presumably founded upon the stereotype that Jews are supposedly "money-grubby".

Of course this isn't to say that anti-Semitism is never present in the criticism of the State of Israel, because it is, however frequently, which is unfortunate because I often don't approve of the State of Israel's policies and, at the very same time, I abhor anti-Semitism. Mind you I don't feel any particular way about Jewish people as a whole, but there are individuals for whom I care very deeply and their beliefs as adherents to Judaism have no bearing. I'd much rather critics of the State of Israel didn't resort to anti-Semitism.

Also, equating policies of the State of Israel to those of the Third Reich is very much not anti-Semitism. It literally cannot be. It's commonly referred to as "Reductio ad Hitlerum" or "Reductio ad Nazium".

I dunno, you really want to go to bat for her?

What does this even mean?

Does liking and retweeting mean she said it herself? Why or why not?

Can it mean anything else? Why or why not?

What happened to the author of the original tweet? Do you feel the action (or lack thereof) was justified? Why or why not?

Why do you place so much importance on "likes" and "retweets", as you've even demonstrated on this very forum? You actually pointed out an individual having "liked" another post as an argument against the remarks of that individual rather than addressing the "liked" post. This is idiotic.

You're not this stupid. Don't pretend that you are.

If Donald Trump likes and retweets something that says "The Jews are moneygrabbers who are manipulating the white race" don't try and say that it means nothing.

It's embarrassing.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Which one isn't, or are you saying both aren't?

 

[TexRex]

I dunno, you really want to go to bat for her?

Amazing. You quote me calling you out for deceitful tactics as you continue to engage in said tactics.

 

[TenEightyOne]

it is majority Muslim Pakistani/Bangledeshi men that have been convicted of grooming in:

Telford

Oxford

Rotherham

Rochdale

Manchester

Newcastle

Ayelesbury

Bristol

Peterborough

Keighley

Sheffield

?

Frankly such a stance would be ridiculous as

1) you're saying profiling should be limited if it comes up with uncomfortable conclusions.

Given that the vast majority of men convicted of grooming offences are white the conclusion is... what?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Amazing. You quote me calling you out for deceitful tactics as you continue to engage in said tactics.

View attachment 918107

What is deceitful?

That I've given another link I found after searching for Naz Shah to further my point that she's a racist?

Given that the vast majority of men convicted of grooming offences are white the conclusion is... what?

The conclusion is that, after noting the fact that 86% of the population of the UK are White according to the last census: so what?

My post was that in the context of grooming children (especially in being involved in grooming gangs), Asians (read: Pakistani/Bangladeshi) are over-represented no matter the study.

 

[TexRex]

What is deceitful?

That I've given another link I found after searching for Naz Shah to further my point that she's a racist?

Being called a racist is so 2018

...

My post was that in the context of grooming children (especially in being involved in grooming gangs), Asians (read: Pakistani/Bangladeshi) are over-represented no matter the study.

*cough*

 

[HenrySwanson]

...


*cough*

Ehhhh....this isn't the hill you want to die on friend:

Studies on those involved in grooming children do suggest that a disproportionate number of offenders are categorised as being of Asian ethnicity. The proportion of offenders or suspected offenders varies from study to study, but was anywhere from 27% to 75% in the studies we looked at. These studies all vary slightly in the way they analyse the offenders and suspected offenders and the level of response they received from child protection agencies across the country.

UK Pakistani/Bangladeshi percent of population:

2.8%

 

[TexRex]

Studies on those involved in grooming children do suggest that a disproportionate number of offenders are categorised as being of Asian ethnicity.

From the article I cited:

"“Grooming gang” is not a legal category. Group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) falls under a range of offences, from rape to conspiracy to incite prostitution. In only some cases, often when non-whites are involved, is ethnicity recorded.

And, really, it makes sense that it wouldn't be recorded, because "ethnicity" isn't meaningful.

 

[HenrySwanson]

From the article I cited:

"“Grooming gang” is not a legal category. Group-based child sexual exploitation (CSE) falls under a range of offences, from rape to conspiracy to incite prostitution. In only some cases, often when non-whites are involved, is ethnicity recorded.

And, really, it makes sense that it wouldn't be recorded, because "ethnicity" isn't meaningful.

You're not thinking objectively, or you're being deliberately dishonest.

Who are you to say that their ethnic background, especially when considering the culture that they grew up in or live in, isn't meaningful?

Is it meaningful here, when someone highlights the problem we have with black on black violence?

Why should Champion be punished for highlighting the observable fact that we have a problem with grooming gangs of people of Pakistani/Bangladeshi descent.

You should note that in my source, even Naz Shah admitted this:

“Yes Pakistani men are disproportionately involved in grooming gangs and this particular model of abuse. And no that is not a racist statement."

 

[Danoff]

You're not thinking objectively, or you're being deliberately dishonest.

Who are you to say that their ethnic background, especially when considering the culture that they grew up in or live in, isn't meaningful?

Is it meaningful here, when someone highlights the problem we have with black on black violence?

Why should Champion be punished for highlighting the observable fact that we have a problem with grooming gangs of people of Pakistani/Bangladeshi descent.

You should note that in my source, even Naz Shah admitted this:

“Yes Pakistani men are disproportionately involved in grooming gangs and this particular model of abuse. And no that is not a racist statement."

Do you think Pakistani is a race? How about Bangladeshi?

"Black on black" is not actually particularly meaningful. Violence is meaningful. Person on person is meaningful. "Black on black", if shown to be statistically significant, would at best be a symptom of something else meaningful, and not meaningful in and of itself.

 

[TexRex]

You're not thinking objectively, or you're being deliberately dishonest.

Who are you to say that their ethnic background, especially when considering the culture that they grew up in or live in, isn't meaningful?

Is it meaningful here, when someone highlights the problem we have with black on black violence?

Why should Champion be punished for highlighting the observable fact that we have a problem with grooming gangs of people of Pakistani/Bangladeshi descent.

You should note that in my source, even Naz Shah admitted this:

“Yes Pakistani men are disproportionately involved in grooming gangs and this particular model of abuse. And no that is not a racist statement."

Hey look, no response to the lack of standard for recording "ethnicity" (which is crazy ambiguous and as a result not meaningful) in group-based child sexual exploitation cases, presumably because it kneecaps the "disproportionately Asian" narrative.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Do you think Pakistani is a race? How about Bangladeshi?

"Black on black" is not actually particularly meaningful. Violence is meaningful. Person on person is meaningful. "Black on black", if shown to be statistically significant, would at best be a symptom of something else meaningful, and not meaningful in and of itself.

Hey look, no response to the lack of standard for recording "ethnicity" (which is crazy ambiguous and as a result not meaningful) in group-based child sexual exploitation cases, presumably because it kneecaps the "disproportionately Asian" narrative.

Should the authors of this report be punished for saying black people are 4 times more likely to die from coronavirus than white people?

Why/Why not?

 

[TexRex]

Should the authors of this report be punished for saying black people are 4 times more likely to die from coronavirus than white people?

Why/Why not?

There was an ant in my coffee cup this morning and it floated to the surface when I filled it. I drank it anyway because I figured it's just protein and I don't have any poison traps out, negating virtually all risk of poisoning if the ant happened to be carrying any.

 

[Danoff]

Should the authors of this report be punished for saying black people are 4 times more likely to die from coronavirus than white people?

Why/Why not?

No answer to my question? Define "punished".

 

[HenrySwanson]

No answer to my question? Define "punished".

They are ethnic groups.

There's a reason Sikhs and Hindus object to the use of the term "Asian" when media reports on grooming gangs.

I was using the term "punished" as a follow on from the example of Champion, who was punished by the Labour party (see earlier posts).

I'd also like an answer to my question, as I'm seeing from the opposing posts that ethnic background is entirely superflous when talking about crime and was wondering if that is the case when it comes to medicine too.

------

I just want to know, as a hypothetical:

Would it be right to report on the ethnicity of a group that commits 100% of a crime when they make up a minority in a country?

How about 75%?
50%?
25%?

Just wondering if there is a threshold.