Racism Part two

[ml1dch]

To be perfectly honest, I still find "you can dislike Israel..." to be a pretty problematic statement. 

I'm assuming it’s convenient short-hand for "many of the policy decisions taken by the Israeli government and the attitudes of many Israeli people towards the concept of a Palestinian state", but without the additional context it's still a pretty dodgy claim to make. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by ml1dch

[chrisp65]

6 hours ago, ml1dch said:

To be perfectly honest, I still find "you can dislike Israel..." to be a pretty problematic statement. 

I'm assuming it’s convenient short-hand for "many of the policy decisions taken by the Israeli government and the attitudes of many Israeli people towards the concept of a Palestinian state", but without the additional context it's still a pretty dodgy claim to make. 

I’ve sort of always presumed it meant the political / military / economic actions of the state of Israel.

Not every individual within the border. Not Israelis.

I’d say I don’t like Iran and Saudi Arabia, I have nothing but love for the individual Iranians and Saudis until they individually show themselves to be dicks in some way.

I’m often rude about Westminster. I don’t mean everybody that lives in Westminster. To have to fully explain and caveat that every time is going to make me even more boring. 

[blandy]

17 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 To have to fully explain and caveat that every time is going to make me even more boring. 

Of course. And also for a non native UK language person as in @KenjiOgiwara. it's no doubt even harder to pick up on the distinction. But I agree with the point made that if there were to be an underlying "I hate [Israel]" vibe, someone might wonder about whether that person actually hates "Israelis", because they hold (all) Israelis responsible for the sins of [Israel's] authorities.

[darrenm]

53 minutes ago, blandy said:

Of course. And also for a non native UK language person as in @KenjiOgiwara. it's no doubt even harder to pick up on the distinction. But I agree with the point made that if there were to be an underlying "I hate [Israel]" vibe, someone might wonder about whether that person actually hates "Israelis", because they hold (all) Israelis responsible for the sins of [Israel's] authorities.

I tend to find it's far better to directly reference the actions of Netanyahu, Likkud or the current Israeli administration directly to save confusion.

[chrisp65]

Likkud have something like a quarter of the seats and are part of a very precarious formal coalition which is then propped up by informal agreeemnt from other parties.

I think that could be quite a paragraph of context to write every time. To write Netanyahu would equally suggest he alone is responsible and it was better before him and will return to something better after him.

Completely agree with the cautious sentiment. Not sure it works unless you also then go on to similarly explain ‘arab’ or ‘Palestinian’, ‘American’, ‘Russian’...

 

[ml1dch]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I’ve sort of always presumed it meant the political / military / economic actions of the state of Israel.

Not every individual within the border. Not Israelis.

I’d say I don’t like Iran and Saudi Arabia, I have nothing but love for the individual Iranians and Saudis until they individually show themselves to be dicks in some way.

I’m often rude about Westminster. I don’t mean everybody that lives in Westminster. To have to fully explain and caveat that every time is going to make me even more boring. 

Then again, if one of the most furious areas of political debate of the last few years had been on the nuance of the nomenclature used for Iranians, the religion they (mostly) practice, the political class and how your chosen words meant you were either going to be labelled a massive racist or simply someone concerned about human rights - then you'd probably make sure that you were being precise in your choice of words if the subject of Iran came up in conversation. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by ml1dch

[sheepyvillian]

On 06/02/2019 at 22:13, peterms said:

Did he?  I didn't see that.  I saw him regretting the incident and accepting responsibility, but haven't seen him acknowledging it as racist.  Could you point me towards where he's quoted as doing so?

What else was it, but racist? The acknowledgement was in the telling. You don't have to be an expert in race relations to work that one out. 

[sne]

This is fine right?

 

[HanoiVillan]

Reminds me of British soldiers using photos of Jeremy Corbyn for target practice. Of course there just are angry right-wing dickheads Out There, but it's always depressing and worrying to realise how many of them carry guns as part of their day jobs.

[Demitri_C]

Can someone tell me what they think of this.

If you work for the nhs you have to do something called e learning which is mandatory for all staff on  various different things eg fire training, information governance etc.

So the one i had to do is a new one called intervening and helping prevent terrorism.

One of the questions asked select the two correct answers form the three below answers.

Question was- what can be deemed as potential red flags for terrorism:

Someone trying to influence and enforce controversial religious views

Recruiting others to spread hate

Reading islam.

I was quite shocked someone felt the last answer was appropriate as you know there will be some stupid people who put that as one of their answers.

[stuart_75]

Those attack dogs in that video don't mess about do they.

[Davkaus]

42 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

 

I was quite shocked someone felt the last answer was appropriate as you know there will be some stupid people who put that as one of their answers.

So? Presumably, as with every eLEarning course I've ever been on, it shows them the correct answers, and provides an explanation as  to why the selected answer is incorrect?

[KenjiOgiwara]

24 minutes ago, stuart_75 said:

Those attack dogs in that video don't mess about do they.

You can kinda tell how they love to do as told. Some dogs just look happy when worked physically and mentally. 

But sorry for dragging this off topic. 

[Demitri_C]

2 hours ago, Davkaus said:

So? Presumably, as with every eLEarning course I've ever been on, it shows them the correct answers, and provides an explanation as  to why the selected answer is incorrect?

Because you know ignorant people will click it. Why they assigning islam ti the question? Why not say christianity in that case?

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Because you know ignorant people will click it. Why they assigning islam ti the question? Why not say christianity in that case?

So this way it sends a warning to the HR department that they've got a wrong 'un that needs watching. 

[Davkaus]

33 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Because you know ignorant people will click it. Why they assigning islam ti the question? Why not say christianity in that case?

What's the problem with ignorant people clicking it? What do you think the purpose of the course is?

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

What do you think the purpose of the course is?

Its an NHS elearning course, my missus does them all the time

The answer is... so the person on the pay grade above can compile some stats so they look good, those stats will then be sent to the person above on the next paygrade. These stats will then be further compiled giving all the people on yet higgher pay grades continued justification for their existence, an existence which baffles most of the people that do the actual work who would much rather be actually getting on with their work rather than setting aside an hour of their time ticking pointless boxes on quite frankly insulting elearning questions

[blandy]

7 hours ago, bickster said:

Its an NHS elearning course, my missus does them all the time

The answer is... so the person on the pay grade above can compile some stats so they look good, those stats will then be sent to the person above on the next paygrade. These stats will then be further compiled giving all the people on yet higgher pay grades continued justification for their existence, an existence which baffles most of the people that do the actual work who would much rather be actually getting on with their work rather than setting aside an hour of their time ticking pointless boxes on quite frankly insulting elearning questions

That’s not nearly cynical enough. I mean there’s the whole element of corporate arse covering to also take into account....”but all our employees are trained in how to use a fire extinguisher and which type to select for an electrical fire....”

And then there’s the “nice little sideline and kickback” -  “yeah, so there’s a chap I play golf with, Jasper, who has an e learning business, he provides solutions for delivering corporate training for employees at very reasonable prices” 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

12 hours ago, stuart_75 said:

Those attack dogs in that video don't mess about do they.

Brilliant,  I love watching stuff like that.

 

[Demitri_C]

9 hours ago, bickster said:

Its an NHS elearning course, my missus does them all the time

The answer is... so the person on the pay grade above can compile some stats so they look good, those stats will then be sent to the person above on the next paygrade. These stats will then be further compiled giving all the people on yet higgher pay grades continued justification for their existence, an existence which baffles most of the people that do the actual work who would much rather be actually getting on with their work rather than setting aside an hour of their time ticking pointless boxes on quite frankly insulting elearning questions

Nail on head there bicks

Just to add to this @Davkausseems that question has upset a muslim worker in the office.

Oh dear

Edited August 4, 2020 by Demitri_C