First Crash folks, serious leasons learned

Anonymous

mfin wrote:

I for one am not defending what the OP said in the slightest... I think it's completely wrong, just can't see how the abrasive attacks on him can be the best way to educate him (or whatever is trying to be achieved?) that's all. When's the last time anyone here was called 'ignorant' for example and then thought to think more deeply about the topic concerned rather than just feeling like they're on the end of some aggression? just all seems so negative to me.

But you are negative, look at your signature, nice. :roll:

shouldbeinbed

careful wrote:

I am grateful though that even on a humble cycling forum there are people who are vigilant enough, and who have a the moral compass to correct the transgressions of others.

subtle is best, chapeau

mfin

dmclite wrote:

mfin wrote:

I for one am not defending what the OP said in the slightest... I think it's completely wrong, just can't see how the abrasive attacks on him can be the best way to educate him (or whatever is trying to be achieved?) that's all. When's the last time anyone here was called 'ignorant' for example and then thought to think more deeply about the topic concerned rather than just feeling like they're on the end of some aggression? just all seems so negative to me.

But you are negative, look at your signature, nice. :roll:

Oh... I'm negative am I?? Its humour!! ...never heard anyone like Jack Dee going on about people using text speak being daft or anything like that?? ..or Ricky Gervais taking the p1ss out of people writing protest songs? ...its humourous, yeah its dry, but a lot of British humour is. Maybe my avatar is negative too! ...Only last week I came to the defence of an Indian lady working in a shop that was suffering a disgusting hurl of abuse from a drunken lout, so its not like I don't consider my opinions or what Ive said here.

Don't worry, I know you've probably said that with humour too

Anonymous

mfin wrote:

dmclite wrote:

mfin wrote:

I for one am not defending what the OP said in the slightest... I think it's completely wrong, just can't see how the abrasive attacks on him can be the best way to educate him (or whatever is trying to be achieved?) that's all. When's the last time anyone here was called 'ignorant' for example and then thought to think more deeply about the topic concerned rather than just feeling like they're on the end of some aggression? just all seems so negative to me.

But you are negative, look at your signature, nice. :roll:

Oh... I'm negative am I?? Its humour!! ...never heard anyone like Jack Dee going on about people using text speak being daft or anything like that?? ..or Ricky Gervais taking the p1ss out of people writing protest songs? ...its humourous, yeah its dry, but a lot of British humour is. Maybe my avatar is negative too! ...Only last week I came to the defence of an Indian lady working in a shop that was suffering a disgusting hurl of abuse from a drunken lout, so its not like I don't consider my opinions or what Ive said here.

Don't worry, I know you've probably said that with humour too

Busted. Tongue firmly in cheek last post....sorry.

softlad

Flanker37 wrote:

Bugger me, the other guy never once asked me if i was all right ( an indian btw)

you're lucky he didn't scalp you.....

dandrew

Racism is unacceptable.

The only form of intolerance that seems to be accepted on this forum is directed towards people who work at Halfords or ride the bikes they sell.

pedylan

dandrew wrote:

Racism is unacceptable.

The only form of intolerance that seems to be accepted on this forum is directed towards people who work at Halfords or ride the bikes they sell.

A somewhat unambitious list dandrew

Motorists, journalists, celebrity chefs, mtbers and if campag/shimano isn't discrimination and prejudice then I've been leading a sheltered life.

Simonb256

I just read the whole topic and I'm honestly ashamed to be associated with you guys. Really..

Someone had an accident, 9/10 both parties are at fault in an accident (honest).The 'doctor' could of moved tot he left, the OP could of handled the bike better/be going slower.

This whole, "OMG burn the racist" sh*te is laughable. It's a feature of the guy he hit. No doubt you'd get the same reaction if he had posted "...btw he only had one arm" or "...btw he was wearing a trilby". Since when is making an observation being racist?

Also all this sh*te in this topic just goes to show it really is a case of ' you can have your own opinion as long as it fits with mine'.

Everyone grow up and stop trying to be an internet hero.

This is why I seldom post here anymore, whenever someone posts an eventful commute they get ripped to shreds by someone who wasnt there, doesnt know what happened and just guesses. When the OP tries to defend himself he gets accused of changing his story, when hes just correcting your assumptions.

sh*t happens, people have opinions, people make observations. Deal with it really.

bazbadger

Simonb256 wrote:

I just read the whole topic and I'm honestly ashamed to be associated with you guys. Really..

Someone had an accident, 9/10 both parties are at fault in an accident (honest).The 'doctor' could of moved tot he left, the OP could of handled the bike better/be going slower.

This whole, "OMG burn the racist" sh*te is laughable. It's a feature of the guy he hit. No doubt you'd get the same reaction if he had posted "...btw he only had one arm" or "...btw he was wearing a trilby". Since when is making an observation being racist?

Also all this sh*te in this topic just goes to show it really is a case of ' you can have your own opinion as long as it fits with mine'.

Everyone grow up and stop trying to be an internet hero.

This is why I seldom post here anymore, whenever someone posts an eventful commute they get ripped to shreds by someone who wasnt there, doesnt know what happened and just guesses. When the OP tries to defend himself he gets accused of changing his story, when hes just correcting your assumptions.

sh*t happens, people have opinions, people make observations. Deal with it really.

+1

volvicspar

Have to agree with simon, as I said earlier, some serious over-reactions on here.

Buckled_Rims

Simonb256 wrote:

I just read the whole topic and I'm honestly ashamed to be associated with you guys. Really..

Someone had an accident, 9/10 both parties are at fault in an accident (honest).The 'doctor' could of moved tot he left, the OP could of handled the bike better/be going slower.

This whole, "OMG burn the racist" sh*te is laughable. It's a feature of the guy he hit. No doubt you'd get the same reaction if he had posted "...btw he only had one arm" or "...btw he was wearing a trilby". Since when is making an observation being racist?

Also all this sh*te in this topic just goes to show it really is a case of ' you can have your own opinion as long as it fits with mine'.

Everyone grow up and stop trying to be an internet hero.

This is why I seldom post here anymore, whenever someone posts an eventful commute they get ripped to shreds by someone who wasnt there, doesnt know what happened and just guesses. When the OP tries to defend himself he gets accused of changing his story, when hes just correcting your assumptions.

sh*t happens, people have opinions, people make observations. Deal with it really.

I agree with Simon.

If a forum mod is reading this, then I'm afraid this topic is simply bringing disrepute on a good website in my honest opinion. This topic should have been pulled long ago.

Anonymous

Everyone grow up and stop trying to be an internet hero.


Looks like the job of internet hero is already been taken.............

pedylan

Buckled_Rims wrote:

I agree with Simon.

If a forum mod is reading this, then I'm afraid this topic is simply bringing disrepute on a good website in my honest opinion. This topic should have been pulled long ago.

I had considered adding a few thoughts myself, none of which agreed with Simon incidentally, but I too consider this thread better closed and hoped it would be allowed to die.

So +1 to Buckled Rims, either pull it or leave it alone.

1footedninja

fast as fupp

dandrew wrote:

Racism is unacceptable.

The only form of intolerance that seems to be accepted on this forum is directed towards people who work at Halfords or ride the bikes they sell.

surely its ok to hate FAT folk?

Chip \'oyler

fast as fupp wrote:

dandrew wrote:

Racism is unacceptable.

The only form of intolerance that seems to be accepted on this forum is directed towards people who work at Halfords or ride the bikes they sell.

surely its ok to hate FAT folk?

Yes it is

teagar

Simonb256 wrote:

This whole, "OMG burn the racist" sh*te is laughable. It's a feature of the guy he hit. No doubt you'd get the same reaction if he had posted "...btw he only had one arm" or "...btw he was wearing a trilby". Since when is making an observation being racist?

Since when was making an observation being racist? Since racism existed largely. The point of racism is that if you observe "races", if you see the world in that way, then you are, literally, (not necessarily morally) a racist. That "observing" creates the space for racism to occur.

When you imply or suggest that race (or ethnic nationality, which in this case is meant synonymously) has a bearing on someone's character, you (should) become a social lepper. Hence the response. on the forum.

Of course he wouldn't get the same reaction if he said "btw he was wearing a trilby".

But he didn't say that!

If he said he loved goats he'd also get a different reaction.

They're completely different!

softlad

teagar wrote:

Since when was making an observation being racist? Since racism existed largely. The point of racism is that if you observe "races", if you see the world in that way, then you are, literally, (not necessarily morally) a racist. That "observing" creates the space for racism to occur.

what a load of rubbish. you are saying that simply being conscious and observant makes someone racist..? get a grip man - before you disappear up your own bottom.....

teagar

softlad wrote:

teagar wrote:

Since when was making an observation being racist? Since racism existed largely. The point of racism is that if you observe "races", if you see the world in that way, then you are, literally, (not necessarily morally) a racist. That "observing" creates the space for racism to occur.

you are saying that simply being conscious and observant makes someone racist..? .

Spot on!

Was my specialist topic for my degree and bagged me a first this summer. There's an awful lot of extremely well thought of literature which agrees with me.

Remember, i said "literally" a racist.
i.e. someone who defines the world through race. It's not a moral judgement like I said. (The fact that you take it as such demonstrates that you see meaning behind the literal "racist" since you associate it with moral and emotive feelnigs and ideas. The same logic can be applied to the original faux pax made in the OP. You can't take him litereally because those associations with the way he described the guy he hit DO exist and cannot be separated from the word).

I'm pretty sure you don't divide the world up by what colour eyes they have or what hand the write with.

You do divide the world according to nations/race/gender etc.

There's plenty of reasons why.

Human knowledge is not and cannot be "objective" in any absolute term, as this example neatly demonstrates.

If you want to read more and understand where I'm coming from, rather than dismissing it out of hand as academic bullsh!t or something along those lines, I won't bore you all with discourses, Manichien allegories, litterary deconstruction etc, but go read up on Foucault, Edward Said, and any other respected historian, sociologists and philosophers who deals with issues of gender, race, and other minorities.

bazbadger

Glad your degree is useful on a bike forum.

Well done.

softlad

teagar wrote:

Spot on!

Was my specialist topic for my degree and bagged me a first this summer. There's an awful lot of extremely well thought of literature which agrees with me.

Remember, i said "literally" a racist.
i.e. someone who defines the world through race. It's not a moral judgement like I said. (The fact that you take it as such demonstrates that you see meaning behind the literal "racist" since you associate it with moral and emotive feelnigs and ideas. The same logic can be applied to the original faux pax made in the OP. You can't take him litereally because those associations with the way he described the guy he hit DO exist and cannot be separated from the word).

I'm pretty sure you don't divide the world up by what colour eyes they have or what hand the write with.

You do divide the world according to nations/race/gender etc.

There's plenty of reasons why.

Human knowledge is not and cannot be "objective" in any absolute term, as this example neatly demonstrates.

If you want to read more and understand where I'm coming from, rather than dismissing it out of hand as academic bullsh!t or something along those lines, I won't bore you all with discourses, Manichien allegories, litterary deconstruction etc, but go read up on Foucault, Edward Said, and any other respected historian, sociologists and philosophers who deals with issues of gender, race, and other minorities.

no offence fella, but I think if anyone needs an object lesson in what is wrong with the racism debate, your standpoint pretty much sums it up. I have often wondered what people meant when they referred to the 'PC brigage' - and now I know.....

Hypothetically, let's assume the indian guy had assaulted him, before making off with his wallet, after the crash. How would he have been able to describe the guy to the police without coming across as a racist, in your eyes...??

Because I am conscious and have at least a basic level of intelligence, I am able to identify and differentiate between thousands of objects I see every day. But you are saying that my ability to visually differentiate between someone who is 'white' and someone who (for instance) is 'black' makes me a racist - despite the fact that I treat them no differently..?

skinson

I didn't know you could get a first in bullsh1t!!
Dave

Nuggs

softlad wrote:

teagar wrote:

Since when was making an observation being racist? Since racism existed largely. The point of racism is that if you observe "races", if you see the world in that way, then you are, literally, (not necessarily morally) a racist. That "observing" creates the space for racism to occur.

what a load of rubbish. you are saying that simply being conscious and observant makes someone racist..? get a grip man - before you disappear up your own bottom.....

Careful softlad, he's got a degree and he's not afraid to use it

zanes

softlad wrote:

Hypothetically, let's assume the indian guy had assaulted him, before making off with his wallet, after the crash. How would he have been able to describe the guy to the police without coming across as a racist, in your eyes...??

I asked that some pages ago when DMC was making a lot of noise. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I never did get an answer

Anonymous

zanes wrote:

softlad wrote:

Hypothetically, let's assume the indian guy had assaulted him, before making off with his wallet, after the crash. How would he have been able to describe the guy to the police without coming across as a racist, in your eyes...??

I asked that some pages ago when DMC was making a lot of noise. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I never did get an answer

Nah, there is nothing wrong in being descriptive, black, white, tall, short etc. It was the implication of "btw" as if the chap being Indian or any other background, race, creed or religion would make a blind bit of difference to a smack up of two bikes. This was the main point in the argument between everyone who posted.
Maybe Zanes you should have persisted in your question/line of enquiry, only a suggestion I am not having a pop.

Chip \'oyler

zanes wrote:

softlad wrote:

Hypothetically, let's assume the indian guy had assaulted him, before making off with his wallet, after the crash. How would he have been able to describe the guy to the police without coming across as a racist, in your eyes...??

I asked that some pages ago when DMC was making a lot of noise. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I never did get an answer

Yes, I saw them in a gig with Public Enemy and they were loud

Anonymous

Chip \'oyler wrote:

zanes wrote:

softlad wrote:

Hypothetically, let's assume the indian guy had assaulted him, before making off with his wallet, after the crash. How would he have been able to describe the guy to the police without coming across as a racist, in your eyes...??

I asked that some pages ago when DMC was making a lot of noise. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I never did get an answer

Yes, I saw them in a gig with Public Enemy and they were loud

Walk this way.

zanes

dmclite wrote:

Maybe Zanes you should have persisted in your question/line of enquiry, only a suggestion I am not having a pop.

Quite possibly, but I avoid arguing too much ( ) on the internet, even if I win we all still look f***ing stupid. :shock:

teagar

"Hypothetically, let's assume the indian guy had assaulted him, before making off with his wallet, after the crash. How would he have been able to describe the guy to the police without coming across as a racist, in your eyes...??"

If you wanted to do that i a non-racist you'd have to say "his skin is the colour of blah" etc.

By saying he's indian (or african-american or whatever), you're being (literally) racist.

I shall explain.

Racism is defined as discriminating on the basis of someone's racial or ethnic background.

Now, discrimination doesn't necessarily have to be negative. Discrimination is a process used to distinguish some things to other things.

The point is, is that everyone, me, you, the government etc, makes distinctions between people on the basis of their ethnicity. This particular guy was Indian, another guy could be African – whatever.

They don’t, for example, make distinctions on your eye colour. Last time I did the census they did not ask if I had green or blue eyes, or whether I wrote with my left hand or right hand. If they did, they would be being “eyeist” or “leftist” or whatever.

By understanding the world in terms of race, by observing race and ethnicity, you are making distinctions on the basis of race. This understanding of the world in this way allows for issues as negative racial discrimination (what is more commonly referred to as just racial discrimination) to exist. If no-one “knew” what ethnicity was, racism couldn’t exist.

And when I say racist, I mean it in the most objective, literal, and non-loaded sense. I’m sure most people on here don’t consciously negatively discriminate against people on grounds of their race.

It’s unfortunate that people mock me because this is the topic I have worked on full time for a year and received formal recognition for good work on that topic. Seems odd to me. I would have thought people would be interested to know the opinion of someone who has made it his expertise.

I’m sure if this was a discussion on bike manufacture, or some other technical subject, and I had been involved in that industry for a year people would be much happier to take me as an authority.

It seems that people grant non-discreet arts subjects with no such deference.

softlad

teagar wrote:

If no-one “knew” what ethnicity was, racism couldn’t exist.

trouble is fella, your theory is fine - right up to the point where you try to apply it in the real world.

I had a mate in primary school who was originally from from Ghana - I used to sit next to him in class. I knew he was black because I could see it with my own eyes. I didn't need anyone to tell me and neither did he. But I had never heard of 'ethnicity' because I was only seven years old.

By the same token, I'm sure most members of the old National Front didn't understand the word 'ethnicity' either - but it didn't stop them lobbing bricks through the window of the local asian shopkeeper. You see - racism can exist without 'ethnicity'....