I'm racist!

rolf_f

Apparently.... At least according to an idiotic documentary on C4 last night (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radi ... iases-bare)

The gist of it is that it is racist to not fancy everyone of all races equally (note, the Guardian article is about as stupid as the programme). Folk in the programme were described as being subconsciously racist in (via various sometimes questionable tests) of fancying white people more than coloured folk. In my case, there is nothing subconscious about it. I fancy white women (ideally average to slim brunettes with long hair!) more than women of other races. I don't think that this is surprising - it's just taste and a reflection of where I come from. In an ideal world, I'd fancy all women - I'd get more action - but I don't.

There was plenty of incompetent use of data (the presenter,sadly, was not very bright. As I am racist, that probably means that I am subconsciously implying that all young black women are crap at stats but never mind. She infers, for example, that data showing that younger people are less likely to have dated outside their race as being perhaps the fault of the dating sites rather than, for example, that maybe older people have lived longer - on account of being older - and therefore had more opportunity to meet people of different races. She also infers that because all the participants preferred white folk that that meant they didn't fancy the non whites. Much of the line of the programme was that dating websites are heavily to blame by having selection criteria that includes race. Of course, as dating sites include pictures I wonder how much that can really matter; someone who doesn't want to date black women is still not going to look at the profile of a black woman.

Another line seemed to be that white folk are more racist than coloured folk because they are less likely to date people of different races than ethnic minorities. Which, of course, is rather the point. I would imagine if you go to the far East, you'll find lots of East Asians who don't date white people and most of the white minorities happily dating the locals.

Laughably bad though the programme was, it does seem a somewhat insidious premise. It implied that if you don't fancy people of other races, then you won't like them either. I tend to think that there is a difference between fancying someone and liking them but maybe I'm just weird that way. I wonder how long before we have a similar programme suggesting that fancying the opposite sex is sexist and that the only PC way to lust is to do it bisexually.

So there you go. Despite having had plenty of friends of different races I would appear to be a racist (and so are all of you whose wives and husbands are not that dissimilar in general appearance to yourselves). And, surprisingly, I am quite comfortable with that. I hope you folk don't mind but do feel free to ostracise me!

Ben6899

Got under your collar, this one Rolf, hasn't it?

rolf_f

Ben6899 wrote:

Got under your collar, this one Rolf, hasn't it?

It's getting to be 50. I'm probably going to vote Conservative or something next! To be fair, I have always had a dislike of thought police.

ugo.santalucia

In my days I would have loved to date Asian or other "ethnic" girls... Caribbean, Indians, the lot... didn't manage to achieve as much as I would have liked though...

Of well, at least I am not racist :-)

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

didn't manage to achieve as much as I would have liked though...

To be fair I don't know many blokes that did.

meanredspider

It's a bit of a joke because we tend to be genetically programmed to fancy people like us.

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In my days I would have loved to date Asian or other "ethnic" girls... Caribbean, Indians, the lot... didn't manage to achieve as much as I would have liked though...

Of well, at least I am not racist :-)

Don't count your chickens. You may have been into Asian girls because they are possibly 'more submissive'......

mamba80

meanredspider wrote:

It's a bit of a joke because we tend to be genetically programmed to fancy people like us.

Are we? or are we "programmed" socially?

Judging by the numbers of mixed race couples i see, it doesnt appear to be a genetic thing, when my brother bought home a Caribbean GF, my mum was somewhat taken aback, in her day an age, it was unheard off.

mfin

I think the OP is right in that a good bunch of the final conclusions couldn't stand up to basic logic. All sorts of correlation and causation joining of the dots and confirmation bias going on.

I'm sure it doesn't help too that the group they chose did not seem representative of the public, I know people are thick, but how can any representative randomly selected group contain so many air-heads and pouting selfie takers?

The problem is that this is just a TV programme, they could have just talked about existing in-depth research but instead they decided to make TV, trying to verify research findings with a TV friendly crap set of tests. It reminded me of chemistry in school as a kid when asked to burn a peanut and observe how long it burnt for as a measure of the energy in it. It's not scientific.

capt_slog

This from Father Ted. Skip to 1:20 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zkL91LzCMc

Pross

Takes me back to when I was in school and we were having a typical schoolboy chat about the girls. One of my classmates said of one girl 'she'd be nice if she wasn't black'. Seemed bizarre even at the time as she was gorgeous, he was just obviously embarrassed to fancy someone with different coloured skin (there weren't many in the schools I attended).

I think I can honestly say skin colour and race have no effect whatsoever on whether I find a woman attractive, I don't seem to have a 'type' other than I like a bit of shape.

mr_goo

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In my days I would have loved to date Asian or other "ethnic" girls... Caribbean, Indians, the lot... didn't manage to achieve as much as I would have liked though...

Of well, at least I am not racist :-)

Bl00dy hell. I'm no prude but your comment is nigh objectifying women. Treating each race or ethnicity as some kind of collection or to do list.

Ben6899

My god! I agree with Goo.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

Takes me back to when I was in school and we were having a typical schoolboy chat about the girls. One of my classmates said of one girl 'she'd be nice if she wasn't black'. Seemed bizarre even at the time as she was gorgeous, he was just obviously embarrassed to fancy someone with different coloured skin (there weren't many in the schools I attended).

I think I can honestly say skin colour and race have no effect whatsoever on whether I find a woman attractive, I don't seem to have a 'type' other than I like a bit of shape.

Shape-ist.....

veronese68

Oh FFS, now I'm shape-ist too. Just don't bring hair colour into it. What if a person finds fat ankles a turn off, are you then ankle-ist?

Alex99

meanredspider wrote:

It's a bit of a joke because we tend to be genetically programmed to fancy people like us.

Don't you know that science is a tool of white oppression. Get out of here with your racism.

...Sorry I came over all SJW there :oops:

hopkinb

I likes all gurlz. They don't like me so much though. Might be all the leering and the frotting...

verylonglegs

mfin wrote:

I'm sure it doesn't help too that the group they chose did not seem representative of the public, I know people are thick, but how can any representative randomly selected group contain so many air-heads and pouting selfie takers?

I think the problem may be that they are the only type of people willing to appear on TV talking about themselves on such a subject. I doubt more thoughtful introverted personalities are keen to get involved, probably could say the same about a lot of television involving the general public and it's likely what the program makers prefer anyway.

dinyull

The gist of it is that it is racist to not fancy everyone of all races equally

Instantly that is a complete load of bollox.

Everyone is attracted to different things...red, blonde hair - short, fat etc etc etc.

dinyull

meanredspider wrote:

It's a bit of a joke because we tend to be genetically programmed to fancy people like us.

I thought it was the opposite - we are genetically programmed to be attracted to those opposite us. As the more varied the genes are better for healthy children......or have I made that up?!

Alex99

To the OP, I understand your anger. Similar to the accusation of racism, in the social sciences, the view that sex isn't biological but is self determined, fluid and can change even from day to day is becoming the norm. So if you're male and you fancy women, but define that biologically as people with a vagina, then you're being sexist. Because, why don't fancy someone who has a penis, but self identifies as a female? You've been labelled as an oppressor.

Rejection of science is central to much of this thinking. In Canada for example, some of the laws recently passed make teaching some aspects of biology on sex differences effectively illegal because it can be classed as a hate crime.

This is part of a larger ideologically driven agenda which includes any way that you can think of to be a victim and label someone else (usually white men) as the oppressor.

Another area that ignores science is equality of outcome in employment. There was an interview on Radio 4 yesterday from a young female who is a mechanical engineer. The interviewer was asking about how to get more women into engineering. On the surface a positive thing to try to achieve, right? No, not obviously. The part where they discuss whether this is good for everyone involved and whether there is equality of opportunity (which IS the most important thing) was completely bypassed. It's just assumed (incorrectly) that in the absence of (not obviously present in western societies at the present period) social pressure and institutional sexism that we will have 50:50 across all occupations.

pblakeney

Alex99 wrote:

This is part of a larger ideologically driven agenda which includes any way that you can think of to be a victim and label someone else (usually white men) as the oppressor.

As a white man who has just been labelled, I am not sure if this makes me an oppressor, or a victim. :?

ugo.santalucia

Mr Goo wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In my days I would have loved to date Asian or other "ethnic" girls... Caribbean, Indians, the lot... didn't manage to achieve as much as I would have liked though...

Of well, at least I am not racist :-)

Bl00dy hell. I'm no prude but your comment is nigh objectifying women. Treating each race or ethnicity as some kind of collection or to do list.

Oh dear, not racist but sexist... oh well, one has to be something! :roll:

ugo.santalucia

Veronese68 wrote:

Oh FFS, now I'm shape-ist too. Just don't bring hair colour into it. What if a person finds fat ankles a turn off, are you then ankle-ist?

I am that too...

vpnikolov

What about different skin tones?

Does that make someone a tone-ist, or just plain rac-ist? :?

rick_chasey

Broadly speaking pretty much everyone is.

They way in which we 'know' and understand everything (aka the discourse) is inherently political, and, it's fairly easy to argue, inherently racist.

The solution isn't to get upset when you are, but to be conscious of it and work against it. It's worth paying attention to language. Understanding there is a difference between anthropophagy and cannibalism for example (though not one you're likely to encounter in your every day life), will help you be aware of how your thought processes can be slanted and biased in that way.

So rather than work from the assumption that everyone isn't unless you're a member of the KKK and want all black people dead, why don't you work from the assumption that everyone, including you, likely is racist to some degree, and actively work against that, for the betterment of society and humankind?

rolf_f

verylonglegs wrote:

mfin wrote:

I'm sure it doesn't help too that the group they chose did not seem representative of the public, I know people are thick, but how can any representative randomly selected group contain so many air-heads and pouting selfie takers?

I think the problem may be that they are the only type of people willing to appear on TV talking about themselves on such a subject. I doubt more thoughtful introverted personalities are keen to get involved, probably could say the same about a lot of television involving the general public and it's likely what the program makers prefer anyway.

Just to be clear, they hadn't been told that racism and dating was the specific subject matter. All the tests were supposedly of relatively vague purpose though you'd think they'd catch on when they had a load of models of diverse races (of both sexes) paraded in front of them wearing next to nothing and asked to rate them.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Oh FFS, now I'm shape-ist too. Just don't bring hair colour into it. What if a person finds fat ankles a turn off, are you then ankle-ist?

I am that too...

You two disgust me. What you are effectively doing is trying to eliminate fat ankles from the gene pool. The law needs to do something to stop evolution. As an Englishman, I think I should apologise to the world for Darwin.

veronese68

It's a good thing different people are attracted to different types, were it not for that a lot of us would be lonely.

rjsterry

Veronese68 wrote:

It's a good thing different people are attracted to different types, were it not for that a lot of us would be lonely.

Or inbred.

I honestly can't see what the fuss is about - Rolf or C4.

Alex99

PBlakeney wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

This is part of a larger ideologically driven agenda which includes any way that you can think of to be a victim and label someone else (usually white men) as the oppressor.

As a white man who has just been labelled, I am not sure if this makes me an oppressor, or a victim. :?

If you subscribe to this world view, then as a white man it is not possible for you to be the victim. It is quite disgusting.

rick_chasey

Alex99 wrote:

To the OP, I understand your anger. Similar to the accusation of racism, in the social sciences, the view that sex isn't biological but is self determined, fluid and can change even from day to day is becoming the norm. So if you're male and you fancy women, but define that biologically as people with a vagina, then you're being sexist. Because, why don't fancy someone who has a penis, but self identifies as a female? You've been labelled as an oppressor.

Rejection of science is central to much of this thinking. In Canada for example, some of the laws recently passed make teaching some aspects of biology on sex differences effectively illegal because it can be classed as a hate crime.

This is part of a larger ideologically driven agenda which includes any way that you can think of to be a victim and label someone else (usually white men) as the oppressor.

Another area that ignores science is equality of outcome in employment. There was an interview on Radio 4 yesterday from a young female who is a mechanical engineer. The interviewer was asking about how to get more women into engineering. On the surface a positive thing to try to achieve, right? No, not obviously. The part where they discuss whether this is good for everyone involved and whether there is equality of opportunity (which IS the most important thing) was completely bypassed. It's just assumed (incorrectly) that in the absence of (not obviously present in western societies at the present period) social pressure and institutional sexism that we will have 50:50 across all occupations.

I think this twitter feed is for you.

https://twitter.com/manwhohasitall?lang=en