The dating app in question let anyone sign up regardless of skin colour so was the same as any other app catering for other ethnicities. It still got called racist.
That was the second article. The first one was broader.
If only social media was so patient before labelling someone a transphobe.
You didn't merely call them hypocrites. In order to justify calling them hypocrites, you alleged activities that would reinforce the notion that they were hypocrites but declined to substantiate those allegations.
It happens. People call each other stuff, sometimes without good reason. Don't get too worked up about it. I don't know the particular app, so I can't tell you whether I would come to the same conclusion.
"Social media" is not a thing, people are a thing, and people call each other stuff. Try not to get too worked up about it. I'd prefer that dating apps didn't respond without nuance, but that happens too, and it's their prerogative.
What activities?
Was called "Where white people meet"
The problem is, what if it has consequences further down the line.
You alleged they were placing orders through "boohoo," whatever that is and however such an unsubstantiated allegation makes them hypocrites. I linked to the post in which you did so. Jesus tapdancing Christ, you are unbelievably ****ing thick.
Just ease up man, not good for your blood pressure.
Ease up from what? I'm plenty calm.
That's certainly not how you presented it in the post. You've employed the tactic since, and I've quoted you as having done so.
An anecdote doesn't accomplish this, even when said anecdote is revealed to be exactly that.
And now you're presenting hypothetical hypocrisy in order to justify attacking activists whose cause you oppose. I'd say it's unbelievable if not for the fact that I expect it from you. Why does deceit come so easy to you?
Can you not tell a difference between a website called "this is for white people" and having a filter on your dating site that allows individuals to select a skin color?
Like what?
I saw it as being so ubiquitous to be using a service/product (whatever that service/product is) that has a questionable human rights record that I didn't think it required actual figures on the number that overlap between the two groups.
See above. Based on what I said about Disney + I would count Apple users as being guilty as well, which was the wrong way to think about things. I just wish there was as widespread a movement against global human rights abuses.
It's not just for white people:
People have killed themselves over posts on social media so there's potential for psychological harm. Could also lead to people not calling out things that should be over fears of being called racist/sexist/transphobic etc.
The name would suggest otherwise (on purpose). I suppose you think a website called "thiswebsiteisforwhitepeopleonly-wehateblackpeople.com" would be not racist if they technically allowed black people to sign up?
...and that means what? That whitepeoplemeet is a good title?
People have killed themselves for a lot of reasons. I agree that people calling someone a racist a transphobe could result in psychological harm, but so could virtually all speech.
I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make here is.
I just wish there was an understanding that peple are likely to pay attention to issues that are perceived to hit close to home and that there wasn't such a desire to torpedo a movement because it's perceived to get more attention than another.
www.cambridgetoday.ca
For sure, it's a stupid name. But it wasn't just the name people had a problem with, it was the whole idea of it.
It's blatant double standards. Why is one allowed but the other not?
The discussion before, about the state of the counter terrorism program due to people's fears of being called racist is a good example.
At that time I saw the UK as one of the most welcoming places for people of all colours and so didn't see why BLM and the protests were justified. I've been lucky enough to live in London all my life, and the only racism I encountered was from my partner's family who are Gujurati (and some police profiling but I'm not sure I class that as racism) and perhaps this made me ignorant to the experiences of other people. This was brought home to me especially in the last few months as I learned of the abuse my sister received in Ireland and in towns outside of London as well as a close friend during a recent night out in a predominantly white area.
'Kay. I've never drowned, so I don't understand why water safety is so emphasized. People should be more concerned about tiger maulings, since tigers are more prone to violence than water is. People who go to the zoo but also bathe, and the overlap is sure to be significant, are hypocrites.
Years back, before we had a property with our own pool, my daughter and I had to leave the public pool early when another kid fell and hit his head hard on the deck, causing a bleed. They cited safety concerns, possibly related to the blood itself rather than the risk of another fall, but they didn't specify. He wasn't in the pool.
Banned books. A tale as old as time. Back in my day, we were required to read books from the banned books list.Books deemed 'harmful to staff and students' are being removed from region's public school libraries
WRDSB has developed a framework to identify and remove inappropriate or questionable texts
I didn't read the other two in high school, but I'm rather amused a book that was as far as 16 year old me could tell a scathing critique on what "white male power structures" can lead to was deemed outdated because it focused on them (months after a white male power structure tried to overthrow the United States government). Seems a bit like removing 1984 because it was focused too much onApple being mean to Fortniteon something that seemed like an authoritarian Western-like government.
www.gtplanet.net
Both are allowed, but as to why people object to one and not the other?
That's weird that it should only be allowed if there was a "need".
I think we do have one if you remember my posts in a different discussion we had recently.
You would see things like Windrush, or differential treatment by the police,...
So you're saying you actually want people to be mauled by tigers. That's awful.
Absolutely.
Isn't the issue that the white population is the majority and therefore doesn't need a white preference app?
Scaff
Not quite no, being in the majority isn't the key driver.
Outliers don't prove your point, and the wider view disproves it (and your link doesn't work).
blogs.lse.ac.uk
But why object to something that let's people filter that preference, thereby making their search for a mate easier? Who cares if they are the "default"? The post about California was showing that there are areas where they aren't the majority, and so may not be the majority of potential matches on dating apps meaning if you were looking for a white partner you would have to go through many more profiles of people you might not be attracted to, despite them being the "default".
This was the post I meant to link to.Outliers don't prove your point, and the wider view disproves it (and your link doesn't work).
Ethnic minorities are less likely to find good work than their white British counterparts, even when born and educated in the UK
Ethnic minorities fare less well on average in the labour market than their white counterparts. Wouter Zwysen, Valentina Di Stasio, and Anthony Heath connect results from two UK-based field experim…
You don't care that a minority enthnicity is the default?
How the state reacts?
I don't really understand how, in dating apps at least, it's a "default" ethnicity?
That report was nonsense (I believe I showed evidence of that in the thread) but if the country was institutionally racist wouldn't every sector put ethnic minorities at a disadvantage, with the cause explicitly being because of their skin colour? Is systemic racism different to institutional?
I've said in the past they should either both be acceptable or unacceptable.
Which is why I'm for balance, for the reasons you've highlighted. To me it seems the pendulum has swung so much that we are getting very quick to call people intolerant over opinions on complex issues.
