Classic

1…45679

Comments

  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    notsoblue wrote:
    Labour's anti-middle class rhetoric? lol...

    I think calling cultural discrimination against the privileged hypocritical is missing the point of why discrimination is generally a bad thing and why society seeks to prevent it through legislation, codes of conduct etc...


    Please note, I didn't say "Labour's anti-middle class rhetoric".

    I also don't see how it's "missing the point" to point out that something is hypocritical when it is and in of itself a bad thing. While also, at the same time, being a bad thing in general. The two (being hypocritical and a generally bad thing) are not mutually exclusive.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • clarkey cat
    clarkey cat Posts: 3,641
    It sounds like we are now seriously debating whether taking the p1ss out of the middle classes is akin to racism or other forms of minority discrimination...

    and for that reason...

    I'm out.
    Dolan Mythos
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Please note, I didn't say "Labour's anti-middle class rhetoric".
    You're right, sorry. I misread. Interesting to know what you mean by the newspaper's anti-middleclass rhetoric? My impression of the New Labour era was that it was a total middle class love in. They seemed to want to give everyone the perception that they were middle class, that they could all go to university for free and sustain middle class consumption levels that boosted our economy but eventually put everyone into debt. I wouldn't say it was anti-snob at all. Could you elaborate on what you meant by that?
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I also don't see how it's "missing the point" to point out that something is hypocritical when it is and in of itself a bad thing. While also, at the same time, being a bad thing in general. The two (being hypocritical and a generally bad thing) are not mutually exclusive.

    Well, the way I see it there are many laws to do with discrimination that are put in place to prevent people in positions of authority (privileged) acting on their prejudice when dealing with minorities under them. This is recognition that the underprivileged require more protection prejudice than the privileged.

    With regards to race, the specific colours don't make a difference, its more about the historical context and cultural status. Many people think that "natives" have more rights and are automatically a higher status in their home country than an immigrant has. In this country the natives are white, so referencing someone's colour in a pejorative sense brings with it the question of their status within society. I don't believe the reverse to be true... Bit of a ramble there, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    notsoblue wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Please note, I didn't say "Labour's anti-middle class rhetoric".
    You're right, sorry. I misread. Interesting to know what you mean by the newspaper's anti-middleclass rhetoric? My impression of the New Labour era was that it was a total middle class love in. They seemed to want to give everyone the perception that they were middle class, that they could all go to university for free and sustain middle class consumption levels that boosted our economy but eventually put everyone into debt. I wouldn't say it was anti-snob at all. Could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

    Yes and that was the New Labour Government. I remember an anti posh/private school/middle class/born into wealth rhetoric from newspapers/media/my immediate society helping to support the notion that you didn't need to be a public school boy fed with a silver spoon in order to aspire into THAT job. Poshing it up was no longer vogue. Class was all but dead they raved and the Greg's were made to feel like outlaws.

    But my view is singular and influenced by where I lived at the time (London and Derby). Now, I would argue that there is more of an anti working class/public sector/people on benefits rhetoric happening in the newspapers and media in contrast to what was written during the Labour years.

    IMO.
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I also don't see how it's "missing the point" to point out that something is hypocritical when it is and in of itself a bad thing. While also, at the same time, being a bad thing in general. The two (being hypocritical and a generally bad thing) are not mutually exclusive.

    Well, the way I see it there are many laws to do with discrimination that are put in place to prevent people in positions of authority (privileged) acting on their prejudice when dealing with minorities under them. This is recognition that the underprivileged require more protection prejudice than the privileged.

    With regards to race, the specific colours don't make a difference, its more about the historical context and cultural status. Many people think that "natives" have more rights and are automatically a higher status in their home country than an immigrant has. In this country the natives are white, so referencing someone's colour in a pejorative sense brings with it the question of their status within society. I don't believe the reverse to be true... Bit of a ramble there, but I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
    [/quote]

    I understand what your saying. I don't entirely disagree with it in principle and I don't entirely agree with it in practice. Still, I don't think you addressed my point directly.

    I do not see how pointing out the hypocrisy of that view is somehow missing the point. It doesn't address the point you're raising, yes. It doesn't mean I've missed it.

    Yes, there are measure in place to protect the vulnerable. But if those measures do not extend to protect those less vulnerable going as far as to allow the vulnerable to victimise those less vulnerable. Then there is a measure of hypocrisy within that. I.e. It's not OK to be racist about black people but it OK to be racist against white people.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,344
    BigMat wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    BigMat wrote:
    I'm astonished people are querying whether calling someone a "black basdart" in any context is racist or not :shock:


    There's a difference between pertaining to race and racially motivated,

    An abuisve comment in the heat of a football match doesn't mean Terry's a racist.

    I'm not for one minute saying that what he said was acceptable or right (it's not) but let's not go overboard here. Is it really something the police should be investigating?

    OK, what is the difference between "pertining to race" and "racially motivated"? I'm going to assume Terry made the alleged comments here - he may not have, just like Armstrong may not have doped. What is the relevance of the guy's skin colour in that insult if it isn't intended to be part of the insult? He didn't call him a tall basdart, or a skilful basdart. He might have called him an ugly basdart, or a lanky basdart. The point is in his tiny mine, the preface "black" is derogatory, and part of the abuse. Its clearly racist. Shoud the police be investigating? Well its a widely publicised incident. Terry is England captain. It sends out all sorts of negative messages. If not the police, the FA and his club should be throwing the book at him.



    There's a difference between abusing someone using a term which refers to their race and abusing them because of their race, You may not agree and I can see your point, but, I'm not convinced that calling him a Black B is fundamentally different from calling him any other B in the heated exchange of a football match.

    There's no doubt in my mind that Terry is guilty. He should have put his hands up, recognised he was at fault and apologised instead of coming up with a BS story.

    Should the FA punish him? Yes but let's not go overboard here. On the scale of things that happened during that match it's not as bad as Chelsea's failure to control their players or Drogba's two footed tackle.

    To be honest the FA should be more focused on Terry's continued and persistant abuse and harassment of referees's.

    He has (and I say this as a Chelsea fan) become an embarassing liability both as a captain and a defender.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    Just don't get me started on positive discrimination, it's a pet hate of mine as I think as soon as you make any decision even a positive one based on race or sexuality all you are doing is reinforcing that their is a difference. However, this was put to me recently, some of my friends come from South Africa and we got round to the point that often white people cannot get jobs in SA, with examples being quoted as people being told they were best candidate but the company had to employ a black person for the role to meet targets. This seems wrong to me on the surface, however the black areas of town suffers from lack of investment and the government need to address this. Do they do this by simply putting money in or by trying to improve social mobility by ensuring higher employment and incomes for that section of the community. It certainly got me thinking.....

    --

    Back to double entendre for moment.

    "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought." - Princess Leia, Star Wars.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Sketchley wrote:
    Just don't get me started on positive discrimination, it's a pet hate of mine as I think as soon as you make any decision even a positive one based on race or sexuality all you are doing is reinforcing that their is a difference. However, this was put to me recently, some of my friends come from South Africa and we got round to the point that often white people cannot get jobs in SA, with examples being quoted as people being told they were best candidate but the company had to employ a black person for the role to meet targets. This seems wrong to me on the surface, however the black areas of town suffers from lack of investment and the government need to address this. Do they do this by simply putting money in or by trying to improve social mobility by ensuring higher employment and incomes for that section of the community. It certainly got me thinking.....

    --

    Back to double entendre for moment.

    "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought." - Princess Leia, Star Wars.

    Yeah. Legislated positive discrimination is a very tricky one.

    In some instances I think it's the least bad option < but you'd expect that from me.
    _
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Yes and that was the New Labour Government. I remember an anti posh/private school/middle class/born into wealth rhetoric from newspapers/media/my immediate society helping to support the notion that you didn't need to be a public school boy fed with a silver spoon in order to aspire into THAT job. Poshing it up was no longer vogue. Class was all but dead they raved and the Greg's were made to feel like outlaws.

    But my view is singular and influenced by where I lived at the time (London and Derby). Now, I would argue that there is more of an anti working class/public sector/people on benefits rhetoric happening in the newspapers and media in contrast to what was written during the Labour years.

    IMO.

    Well I guess my point can be summed up by saying that the "Gregs" are more than capable of dealing with the horror of reverse snobbery. As someone who pays a higher rate of tax myself I don't feel particularly persecuted and in need of protection. Also, if someone tried to racially abuse me with words like mulatto, half-caste or (god forbid) cracker, I honestly wouldn't care. But I still don't think that the n-word should be common parlance. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that this doesn't appear hypocritical to me.
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    I understand what your saying. I don't entirely disagree with it in principle and I don't entirely agree with it in practice. Still, I don't think you addressed my point directly.

    I do not see how pointing out the hypocrisy of that view is somehow missing the point. It doesn't address the point you're raising, yes. It doesn't mean I've missed it.

    Yes, there are measure in place to protect the vulnerable. But if those measures do not extend to protect those less vulnerable going as far as to allow the vulnerable to victimise those less vulnerable. Then there is a measure of hypocrisy within that. I.e. It's not OK to be racist about black people but it OK to be racist against white people.

    The point is that almost by definition the vulnerable are never in a position to victimise those less vulnerable. If you're talking about a posh white kid walking through Peckham, being set upon by some black kids because he's white, then this clearly is as bad as the reverse happening. And there isn't anyone that disagrees with that. Perhaps this is more about racism in the public eye, where people are harsh on shouts of "black bastard" from football fans. Are you saying that its hypocritical that people shouting "white wanker" wouldn't be as frowned upon?
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • Greg T
    Greg T Posts: 3,266
    Anyone watch the Dale Farm clearance - Brilliant wasn't it - didn't even need to pay for it on Sky!

    or am I in the wrong thread?
    Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.

    What would Thora Hurd do?
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    notsoblue wrote:
    Perhaps this is more about racism in the public eye, where people are harsh on shouts of "black bastard" from football fans. Are you saying that its hypocritical that people shouting "white wanker" wouldn't be as frowned upon?

    Connotations: A connotation is a commonly understood subjective cultural and/or emotional association that some word or phrase carries.

    The term "black bastard" carries with it racist connotations.

    I would argue that "white wanker" doesn't.
    nsb wrote:
    The point is that almost by definition the vulnerable are never in a position to victimise those less vulnerable. If you're talking about a posh white kid walking through Peckham, being set upon by some black kids because he's white, then this clearly is as bad as the reverse happening. And there isn't anyone that disagrees with that.

    Your either missing or avoiding my point.

    You have yet to demonstrate how it is "missing the point" to point out that something is hypocritical and in and of itself a bad thing.

    I can't retype it so I'm going to requote my original point.
    I wrote:
    Nope I disagree, that's advocating hyprocrisy. It's like saying it's not OK to racist about Black people but it is OK to be racist against White people because it re-addresses the balance of racism...

    Double standard, the outrage.

    I do however, understand that this logic is in fact more commonplace in society than my idealistic values (above) Blackface = bad and White chicks = somewhat funny

    If it's wrong doing it towards one group then it is not OK to do it to another. It happens and it may even be an accepted necessary. It is still a form of hypocrisy. IMO.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If it's wrong doing it towards one group then it is not OK to do it to another. It happens and it may even be an accepted necessary. It is still a form of hypocrisy. IMO.

    If thats the definition of hypocrisy we're going for here, then sure, you're right, its hypocritical. However in that case I put it to you that theres hypocrisy that matters and hypocrisy that doesn't matter. I think that the hypocrisy of allowing a vulnerable group to victimise a non-vulnerable group is incredibly inconsequential.

    I still think its funny how you and W1 are both so protective of "Gregs" though :)
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    It does worry me that W1 and I seem to be falling on the same side of the sword more and more.... :shock:
    notsoblue wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If it's wrong doing it towards one group then it is not OK to do it to another. It happens and it may even be an accepted necessary. It is still a form of hypocrisy. IMO.

    If thats the definition of hypocrisy we're going for here, then sure, you're right, its hypocritical. However in that case I put it to you that theres hypocrisy that matters and hypocrisy that doesn't matter. I think that the hypocrisy of allowing a vulnerable group to victimise a non-vulnerable group is incredibly inconsequential.

    I still think its funny how you and W1 are both so protective of "Gregs" though :)

    Hahahaha, I say "I put it to you" to Ms DDD to piss her off... My other favourite is "did you or did you not say".

    As to your point of hypocrisy that does and doesn't matter. I did already say
    I wrote:
    So yeah it does happen, a necessary evil.

    :wink:

    I should have been a lawyer.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    notsoblue wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If it's wrong doing it towards one group then it is not OK to do it to another. It happens and it may even be an accepted necessary. It is still a form of hypocrisy. IMO.

    If thats the definition of hypocrisy we're going for here, then sure, you're right, its hypocritical. However in that case I put it to you that theres hypocrisy that matters and hypocrisy that doesn't matter. I think that the hypocrisy of allowing a vulnerable group to victimise a non-vulnerable group is incredibly inconsequential.

    I still think its funny how you and W1 are both so protective of "Gregs" though :)

    Really? Personally I think it reinforces the differences between the two groups leading to greater discrimination of the vulnerable group in long run.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    If it's wrong doing it towards one group then it is not OK to do it to another. It happens and it may even be an accepted necessary. It is still a form of hypocrisy. IMO.

    If thats the definition of hypocrisy we're going for here, then sure, you're right, its hypocritical. However in that case I put it to you that theres hypocrisy that matters and hypocrisy that doesn't matter. I think that the hypocrisy of allowing a vulnerable group to victimise a non-vulnerable group is incredibly inconsequential.

    I still think its funny how you and W1 are both so protective of "Gregs" though :)

    Hahahaha, I say "I put it to you" to Ms DDD to wee-wee her off... My other favourite is "did you or did you not say".

    As to your point of hypocrisy that does and doesn't matter. I did already say
    I wrote:
    So yeah it does happen, a necessary evil.

    :wink:

    I should have been a lawyer.

    :lol: Fair enough, we were agreement all along then, hurrah!
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    It does worry me that W1 and I seem to be falling on the same side of the sword more and more.... :shock:

    "Won't somebody think of the Gregs?"
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Sketchley wrote:
    Really? Personally I think it reinforces the differences between the two groups leading to greater discrimination of the vulnerable group in long run.

    I'm not sure I agree with you, can you think of an example?
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    notsoblue wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    Really? Personally I think it reinforces the differences between the two groups leading to greater discrimination of the vulnerable group in long run.

    I'm not sure I agree with you, can you think of an example?

    Sure. A policy says more women MPs are needed therefore candidates for general election will only be picked from all women short-list. A women then gets elected but is viewed as only having got there because she was a women even though she may of been the best candidate and has to fight the prejudice going forward.

    You can translate that to ethnic minority applying for job in local government as well, or police recruitment policy, or many others.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Look up Affirmative Action and look at the arguments against...

    OK so that's the USA but still.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Bassjunkieuk
    Bassjunkieuk Posts: 4,232
    I get sick of these "initiatives" by the government. They seem to pick a sector of work and then think "oh look there aren't any people from <insert ethnic group> in this job, lets splash some cash to get them interested!"
    Who's the daddy?
    Twitter, Videos & Blog
    Player of THE GAME
    Giant SCR 3.0 - FCN 5
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    @NSB this bit in DDD link is what I'm getting at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmativ ... rimination
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Sketchley wrote:
    @NSB this bit in DDD link is what I'm getting at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmativ ... rimination

    I can't really get on board with positive discrimination. I don't think it solves the root causes of the types of imbalance it is intended to right. Better to keep things meritocratic and just ensure that the opportunities people get are the same regardless of race or gender.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • sketchley
    sketchley Posts: 4,238
    notsoblue wrote:
    Sketchley wrote:
    @NSB this bit in DDD link is what I'm getting at

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmativ ... rimination

    I can't really get on board with positive discrimination. I don't think it solves the root causes of the types of imbalance it is intended to right. Better to keep things meritocratic and just ensure that the opportunities people get are the same regardless of race or gender.

    Good so we agree on that. :D

    Do you not see this as the same thing (e.g. Positive Discrimination) at least that's what I thought you were getting at.
    I think that the hypocrisy of allowing a vulnerable group to victimise a non-vulnerable group is incredibly inconsequential.
    --
    Chris

    Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/5
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    It does worry me that W1 and I seem to be falling on the same side of the sword more and more.

    That will be your increasing maturity due to impending fatherhood [cough].

    I don't think you can pick and choose the "impact" of hypocracy - who are you to say that the "chav" is any worse affected than the "toff"? And in any event I'm not sure it's possible to be so general.

    It's like saying you don't like bullying, unless you don't really like the person being bullied. It doesn't work like that (or, at least, without losing all credibility). Either you are oposed to negative terms being used against minority groups (particularly those who do not chose, or cannot change, the group that they belong to), or you aren't.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1. The world is a complex place.

    If you think it is black & white, you're over-simplifying it.
    _
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1. The world is a complex place.

    If you think it is black & white, you're over-simplifying it.

    Thanks for that - I'm sure you can find some wikipedia entries to support your academic conclusion.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1. The world is a complex place.

    If you think it is black & white, you're over-simplifying it.

    Thanks for that - I'm sure you can find some wikipedia entries to support your academic conclusion.

    Aw boo hoo.

    I can e-mail you my dissertation if you really want.
    _
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,374
    W1 wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    It does worry me that W1 and I seem to be falling on the same side of the sword more and more.

    That will be your increasing maturity due to impending fatherhood [cough].

    I don't think you can pick and choose the "impact" of hypocracy - who are you to say that the "chav" is any worse affected than the "toff"? And in any event I'm not sure it's possible to be so general.

    It's like saying you don't like bullying, unless you don't really like the person being bullied. It doesn't work like that (or, at least, without losing all credibility). Either you are oposed to negative terms being used against minority groups (particularly those who do not chose, or cannot change, the group that they belong to), or you aren't.

    Ah, so it's *not* quite as absolute as you implied at the start of your post.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Sketchley wrote:
    Do you not see this as the same thing (e.g. Positive Discrimination) at least that's what I thought you were getting at.
    I think that the hypocrisy of allowing a vulnerable group to victimise a non-vulnerable group is incredibly inconsequential.

    Well I don't view positive discrimination (PD) as a vulnerable group victimising a non-vulnerable group. PD isn't hypocritical in my view, its just a flawed method that authority (non-vulnerable) can used to make a situation thats perceived to be unfair look more fair than it actually is, without addressing the reasons for it being unfair in the first place.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    W1 wrote:
    I don't think you can pick and choose the "impact" of hypocracy - who are you to say that the "chav" is any worse affected than the "toff"? And in any event I'm not sure it's possible to be so general.

    Is "Toff" really a derogatory term though? Is anyone really ashamed of inheriting lots of money and being comfortably off?
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1. The world is a complex place.

    If you think it is black & white, you're over-simplifying it.

    Thanks for that - I'm sure you can find some wikipedia entries to support your academic conclusion.

    Aw boo hoo.

    I can e-mail you my dissertation if you really want.

    I'm sure I'd struggle to understand that masterpiece.
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    rjsterry wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    It does worry me that W1 and I seem to be falling on the same side of the sword more and more.

    That will be your increasing maturity due to impending fatherhood [cough].

    I don't think you can pick and choose the "impact" of hypocracy - who are you to say that the "chav" is any worse affected than the "toff"? And in any event I'm not sure it's possible to be so general.

    It's like saying you don't like bullying, unless you don't really like the person being bullied. It doesn't work like that (or, at least, without losing all credibility). Either you are oposed to negative terms being used against minority groups (particularly those who do not chose, or cannot change, the group that they belong to), or you aren't.

    Ah, so it's *not* quite as absolute as you implied at the start of your post.

    I'm not sure I implied that "it" was absolute - clearly there is a distinction that can be drawn between those who choise to do something that places them in a minority group (say, BNP members) compared to those who have no choice at all. I'm not sure the distinction is particularly important - or even justifiable, thinking about it, but it is there.

Categories