Is this for real or is he in fact being racist ??? Discuss

[MachoMadness]

It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.

It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

[belton rover]

Someone who shouts ‘Pa*i’ to another person in the street, then it is not merely a racist comment from an ignorant northerner. The person responsible is a scumbag, pure and simple, and probably has no qualms about using offensive, disgusting, abhorrent language to any person of any culture, in any situation. It is a million miles away from Arthanayake’s other concern about his workplace. It’s disappointing that he appears to have grouped the two things together as one problem.

[belton rover]

It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.

It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.

It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Someone who shouts ‘Pa*i’ to another person in the street, then it is not merely a racist comment from an ignorant northerner. The person responsible is a scumbag, pure and simple, and probably has no qualms about using offensive, disgusting, abhorrent language to any person of any culture, in any situation. It is a million miles away from Arthanayake’s other concern about his workplace. It’s disappointing that he appears to have grouped the two things together as one problem.

Do you know that Arthanayake "grouped the two things together as one problem"?

All you have to go on is a short media article, summarising what I assume was a much longer speech.

[belton rover]

Someone who shouts ‘Pa*i’ to another person in the street, then it is not merely a racist comment from an ignorant northerner. The person responsible is a scumbag, pure and simple, and probably has no qualms about using offensive, disgusting, abhorrent language to any person of any culture, in any situation. It is a million miles away from Arthanayake’s other concern about his workplace. It’s disappointing that he appears to have grouped the two things together as one problem.

Do you know that Arthanayake "grouped the two things together as one problem"?

All you have to go on is a short media article, summarising what I assume was a much longer speech.

Which is why I said ‘appears to’. You, too, are making assumptions from the same short media article.

[belton rover]

It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.

It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?

What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I think Wilts was commenting on how strange a reaction it was, to suggest that Arthanayake was displaying racism. Having seen Wilts's posts over the years, I'm sure he wouldn't shy away from explicitly calling someone a racist if they were clearly acting like one.

Maybe you're interpreting his post in a way that confirms what you'd like to be the case? I dunno.

As for Arthanayake's speech and the media article, I'm concluding nothing from it, other than that, presumably, he said what the article says he said about management meetings and his shock at being called  P*** in Manchester. I have absolutely no opinion on whether he linked the two issues, because I have no evidence that HE did. So I certainly wouldn't complain about him "appearing to" do so.

[belton rover]

Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.

Read this out loud:

‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’

The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.

I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.

[belton rover]

Anyway, I’m off to listen to Radio 5 - Arthanayake doesn’t work on Fridays.

[ncRover]

Let’s start from scratch with a thought experiment:

Someone has a negative experience with someone of a certain race.

This someone works in an environment that is on the whole represented by that race.

Then, this someone comes out and says “I feel uncomfortable seeing so many people of X race at work”.

What would you call that person?

Yes this is hypothetical but sometimes it takes that to explain a principle.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .

 " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "

If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .

Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .

Honest question.

When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?

That's going to be very difficult here isn't it?  In Doncaster 93% of people are white, it's quite unlikely to find non white people in most places in the City.  Even accross the Uk it's still 82% white and London heavily distorts that.  Despite what some far right people say it's still quite unlikely to come accross non white persons in a lot of areas indeed if you're talking proportionately, Nihal as a non white person is likely that one person you'd expect proportionately to be non white in the workplace.

He said this phrase;

“The hardest thing is to walk into a room, look around and nobody looks like you.”

Well when you're from a minority that's quite likely isn't it?

[wilts rover]

It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.

It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?

What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.

Well he wouldn't do as he has only just read the thread since posting. Unlike some other posters this forum occupies very little of my time or interest.

Wilts meant exactly what he said in his post. It's up to people reading it to interpretate it as they want too. If they want to read something into it that isn't there - then that's their problem. If they want to misrepresent what I wrote - then that's also their problem.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.

Read this out loud:

‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’

The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.

I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.

!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.

2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well I don't know about anybody else but I detect a whiff of racism with Arthanayake's comments .

 " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is white people "

If I went to Human Resources at my company and told them " it's really affecting me when I walk in and all I see is brown people " I think and rightly so I'd be in serious trouble .

Maybe you just don't fit in Mr Arthanayake , it happens , it's happened to me a couple of times in my working life .

Honest question.

When was the last time you were working and all you could see was "brown people" around you?

That's going to be very difficult here isn't it?  In Doncaster 93% of people are white, it's quite unlikely to find non white people in most places in the City.  Even accross the Uk it's still 82% white and London heavily distorts that.  Despite what some far right people say it's still quite unlikely to come accross non white persons in a lot of areas indeed if you're talking proportionately, Nihal as a non white person is likely that one person you'd expect proportionately to be non white in the workplace.

He said this phrase;

“The hardest thing is to walk into a room, look around and nobody looks like you.”

Well when you're from a minority that's quite likely isn't it?

Please read my post in the correct context - I was replying to what I thought was a rather silly post from Tyke.

[belton rover]

It doesn't mean that. It means he's made acutely aware of his own skin colour by the lack of diversity at work, and, if he's racially abused on the street for example, he doesn't have anyone at work who'll really understand what that's like. No one he works with will, either. But the people he was speaking to in that conference, young people from minority backgrounds, probably will. The context is important.

It's easy for us on here to sit and say we don't think about skin colour. The truth is we never really have to, as white people. We're the default in this country. He'll be confronted with it every day, and I imagine it must get wearing when you can't even have a proper conversation about it, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Macho, it is impossible to have a proper discussion on here about these kind of matters. If anyone shows any opinion other than showing outrage and disgust regarding how he says he feels, then they are accused of at worst being racist, and at best being out of touch with society, as some of the responses on here demonstrate.

Where on this thread has anyone accused a contributor to the thread of being racist?

What do YOU think Wilts meant?
I asked him but he never responded.

Well he wouldn't do as he has only just read the thread since posting. Unlike some other posters this forum occupies very little of my time or interest.

Wilts meant exactly what he said in his post. It's up to people reading it to interpretate it as they want too. If they want to read something into it that isn't there - then that's their problem. If they want to misrepresent what I wrote - then that's also their problem.

Wilts. I never said you had chosen not to answer, just that you hadn’t. You haven’t answered yet though, although that’s fine by me.
Let me try to explain where I’m coming from:

Phrase: and you think I’M stupid
Meaning: you’re the one who’s stupid, not me.

Phrase: And you think THEY’RE out of order
Meaning: It’s you who is out of order, not them.

Phrase: And Sunak thinks STARMER is a liar.
Meaning: it’s Sunak who is the liar, not Starmer.

Phrase: And some of them think HE is a racist.
Meaning: it’s them who are racist, not him.

If that isn’t what you meant, then perhaps you should consider how you word things and how you choose to use capital letters.
I don’t believe, judging by your historical posts, that you have any difficulty in understanding how to write with meaning.

[belton rover]

Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.

Read this out loud:

‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’

The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.

I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.

!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.

2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.

1. I disagree with all of that.

2. That’s what opinions are all about.

And I never assumed the worst possible interpretation, which again was why I asked for clarification.
You are assuming that, not me.

[ncRover]

Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.

Read this out loud:

‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’

The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.

I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.

!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.

2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.

“opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that”

Come on Billy, everybody obviously thinks calling someone that is racist.

2 wrongs don’t make a right.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Billy. Countless times you accuse me of interpreting your (in my opinion) deliberately ambiguous comments the wrong way. You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged.
This is partly why I asked you and Wilts to be more specific.

Read this out loud:

‘And some of them think HE is a racist.’

The upper case ‘HE’ is obviously deliberate. The very clear interpretation of this is that it’s the ‘some of them’ who are the one’s being racist.

I am certain you realise this, but you choose to suggest that I just want to believe that Wilts is accusing others of racism instead.
I dunno either, I really, really dunno.

!) I do NOT EVER write in a way that is "deliberately ambiguous" and I am genuinely affronted by this continued insistence of yours that I act in a way that " allows (me) profess (my) innocence should (I) be challenged." I don't know how many times I have to make this point to you.

2) I read Wilts's words as expressing incredulity that people would think HE (Arthanayake) was racist as opposed to thinking that the people who, for example, call him "P***" were racist. None of the contributors who insinuated that Arthanayake was racist made any comment about that and to me, Wilts's bemusement was obvious and justified. If you read it differently...well, you know my take. An insistence on reading the very worst possible inference into someone's words is not something that ever helps a healthy debate.

1. I disagree with all of that.

2. That’s what opinions are all about.

And I never assumed the worst possible interpretation, which again was why I asked for clarification.
You are assuming that, not me.

Do you realise the scale of egotistical unpleasantness that your answer 1 implies?

You are determined, despite everything I've said for many years on the issue, to assume that I'm deliberately playing silly f**kers when I write. Quite something. It's precisely the reason I had you on ignore. Because you were so utterly convinced that you're right on this topic, that you laid into me for what you assumed was me berating a man for his response to his wife dying.

I genuinely cannot fathom the sort of thinking that insists on making that sort of conclusion. I thought we'd come to an understanding on this issue, but clearly I'm wrong. Might be best if I go back to putting you on ignore.

[belton rover]

I disagree that your posts are never ambiguous.

There is not a whiff off egotistical unpleasantness coming from me.
That’s just your incorrect misinterpretation.
It works both ways, but you don’t see that, and I don’t turn it into something it isn’t.

Yes, sometimes I think you play ‘silly f**kers’.
Often, you don’t.

You do seem incapable of accepting that I could possibly disagree with you at times, as your last post shows.
THAT’S egotistical. But I accept that is how it is.
I have an awful lot of respect for you as a contributor on here, and I relish our debates, but I’m damned if I’m going to change my opinions because you don’t like them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.

[belton rover]

You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.

I believe that sometimes you are.
You say you never are or have been.
Surely all we can do is agree to disagree on that one.

[turnbull for england]

Lad I worked with is 2nd generation from a windrush family. His wife's white and they went to where family was from , one of the smaller islands, not many tourists. After a few days of being one of few white people around  his wife said " oh this is how you feel" . Noone had been rude or off off with her  but she'd  noticed how her being different made her stand out whenever she went in shop etc and how that made her feel. Been married to him for years and still didn't really really get it until it happened to her

[BillyStubbsTears]

You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.

I believe that sometimes you are.

And THAT is precisely the problem. You believe that I deliberately set out to deceive and mess people about. And that I lie when I say that I never, ever do that. And for that reason, you're going back on Ignore. I KNOW what the truth is here. If you're insistent that I'm lying, best if our paths don't cross.

[belton rover]

Lad I worked with is 2nd generation from a windrush family. His wife's white and they went to where family was from , one of the smaller islands, not many tourists. After a few days of being one of few white people around  his wife said " oh this is how you feel" . Noone had been rude or off off with her  but she'd  noticed how her being different made her stand out whenever she went in shop etc and how that made her feel. Been married to him for years and still didn't really really get it until it happened to her

But did she feel it was wrong for that small island not to have more white people?

[belton rover]

You said "deliberately ambiguous." Either own the insult or withdraw it.

I believe that sometimes you are.

And THAT is precisely the problem. You believe that I deliberately set out to deceive and mess people about. And that I lie when I say that I never, ever do that.

I think I have said you lied in the past, and I have apologised for that previously. I’m not calling you a liar now, I’m simply saying I disagree.

[BillyStubbsTears]

You're saying you disagree about my honesty!

[belton rover]

You're saying you disagree about my honesty!

Billy. Where are you going with this?
You say you never say anything ambiguous. I think you do. ANYTHING that can can be interpreted in different ways is ambiguous. I’m sure I do it on occasion too.
Yet again, that’s why I asked you to clarify something earlier, which you did. The old Belton would probably have jumped in with an accusation which no doubt have turned the debate into an unpleasant mess.
Unfortunately, it seems, I haven’t yet worked out how to stop that happening.

[belton rover]

It’s a shame about the ignore. Just have a think about how this conversation has gone before you do it.
The first time You put me on ignore, I questioned my role in it.
This time however, I have done nothing for you to warrant that decision.

And just to be clear. I have NOT called you a liar at any point during this exchange, or since I was unignored.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton
I've not put you on ignore yet, because I can't from a phone.

Your last two posts sum up the issue.

You accused me of posting "deliberately ambiguous comments".  You said "You like to cast a line in a way that then allows you profess your innocence should you be challenged."

That is deeply offensive as well as being plain wrong.

When I forcefully pointed out that was wrong and that I do NOT do that, you have repeatedly refused to accept that. Which means beyond any shadow of doubt that you think I am lying when I refuse your accusation.

And once again, while making the case that you are right,  you've now flipped onto talking about "ambiguity" without the "deliberate".

Of course everyone writes ambiguous things. Because none of us are perfect. That's a million miles from DELIBERATELY writing ambiguously in order to f**k about with people.

If you overstepped in your original post, that's fine. We all write things in haste. But if your original post really reflects how you think I behave, then I want absolutely nothing more to do with you.