Why do Irish gypsies want to be called Roma?
Printable View
Why do Irish gypsies want to be called Roma?
Ah, mistook them for the European version. They want to be called "Minkiers or Pavees, or in Irish as an Lucht Siúil ("the traveling people")."Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That's another problem with the word "gypsy".
You've edited your previous post, the first group I compared gypsies to was not the Nazis, it was chavs.
And? Are they actually comparable to fucking Nazis?
And "gypsy" is a pejorative word mostly for referring to Roma. Even as a pejorative it isn't an accurate word for referring to those groups of itinerant Irish. You bigoted jackass.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And you continue not understanding your own language. "Standard way of speaking" is unaccented (i.e. the "standard" or native accent of the locale). Regardless, "strong Irish accent" certainly doesn't mean "Traveller."Quote:
It was not racist and no strong does not just mean how clear the accent is. It has a specific meaning I was intending: https://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/a-strong-accent
Hey Steely, Timbuk, are "gypsies" what you think of when you hear the phrase "strong Irish accent"? Or is that just Rand's racist crap?
And yet that's not what you actually wrote.Quote:
I specifically did not mean a standard Irish accent
They can change naturally, but that doesn't mean they will, and it CERTAINLY takes an extended period of time, particularly if it's natural and not deliberate.Quote:
Accents change naturally not just deliberately.
I'm also waiting for his answer on what he'd consider to be an "ex member" of that group. Or how he'd actually recognize them to be an "ex member".
Arguable. Your sex is something you were born into, your gender is. . . a rather amorphous social construct which gets hooked onto biological sex identity. It's actually pretty much nonexistent at birth and is fluid growing up and in adulthood, altering in greater and lesser degrees to meet specific contexts over the course of even a single day.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I never said they were, I only reached for that extreme analogy after I had been lambasted for being a terrible person for ever judging a group as being higher risk, so I changed the analogy to an extreme group I knew you would react to. Reductio ad absurdum
If you don't like that analogy, then what about the more recent analogy of men in general? Is a woman a terrible person if she's more alert around men than women?
PS more people than you'd like to imagine are terrible people. About a decade ago I used to work in a store on a shopping centre. One day one of car parks had a load of caravans park on it and the Centre Management sent a warning letter around to all of the stores warning about the caravans. Later that day some Travellers if you prefer that word came in and tried to scam us. Was the Centre Management racist to have warned us about the arrival of the Travellers prior to them trying to scam us that same day?
Not in my country its not. It is an accurate word here. Gypsy is used both on cultural shows on television and as an official legal term to refer to Irish Travellers by both British and devolved government documentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Fat_Gypsy_Weddings
http://gov.wales/topics/people-and-c...17-18/?lang=en
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...gypsysites.pdf
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.g...l?format=print
If I was wanting to be offensive I would use the pejorative "Pikey" - I don't use that word.
Apologise at your own leisure for your ignorance.
Nobody has no accent. In England the accent varies dramatically from one town to another let alone one nation to another, so the idea of no accent is non-existent. Many cities have nicknames for the accent associated with them: Brummy (Birmingham), Scouse (Liverpool), Geordie (Newcastle) etcQuote:
And you continue not understanding your own language. "Standard way of speaking" is unaccented (i.e. the "standard" or native accent of the locale). Regardless, "strong Irish accent" certainly doesn't mean "Traveller."
I have a friend who flips between a soft Geordie accent (when talking to us) and a strong Geordie accent (when talking to family). When he's in strong Geordie mode it's like listening to somebody in a different language. That's what gypsies are like even when talking to others, whereas all other Irish people I know speak with a softer dialect.
Doesn't take that long for an accent to soften.Quote:
They can change naturally, but that doesn't mean they will, and it CERTAINLY takes an extended period of time, particularly if it's natural and not deliberate.
"The Pikey" (Snatch) - an amusing exaggerated stereotype with subtitles.
Most white British men are racists and likely to sexually assault women, beware. There is also a strong correlation between supporting Brexit and being a racist xenophobe and hater of Muslims.
Facts don't lie.
The stories described are also representative of the experiences of Roma here in Sweden, both natives and migrants. Recently, there was a scandal where it was discovered that cops in one region of Sweden maintained very large poorly secured database of Swedish Roma citizens (including children) "just in case" (as in, just in case it may be helpful one day during the investigation of a crime). Roma people are regularly followed around by staff when they enter stores, "just in case". Roma, esp. migrants, are regularly subjected to all forms of abuse by natives, ranging from verbal abuse, through minor attacks like spitting all the way to physical abuse. Many of them are still excluded from most parts of regular society and met with suspicion--at best--whenever they attempt to participate in broader society. I cannot even begin to explain how little I care about the bigotry of shopkeepers in light of the suffering many children and adults in these communities experience throughout their lives, often due to the prejudice of members of the majority population.
Btw, Irish Travellers are recognised as an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act (1976) (later superseded by the the Equality Act), identified as having a shared culture, language and beliefs.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...iscrimination/
So it kinda is racism.
He considers them to be the equivalent of "chavs", neo-Nazi skinheads or members of antisocial criminal gangs. Of course, in reality, Travellers are an increasingly distinct ethnic group with a distinct culture, cultural heritage, language, etc. Within that group you may find the equivalent of "chavs" and neo-Nazi skinheads and antisocial criminal gangsters. Many British racists believe that criminality and other forms of antisocial behavior is integral to the Travellers' culture, which is interesting because a more integral part of their culture seems to be the shared experiences of being subjected to racism from "wary" racists who view them as probable criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Keep blaming the victims rather than the real criminals. She deserved it.
See, if you really cared about these things, and if your beliefs were rational, you would not even serve alcohol in your pub, and certainly not to men.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That said, your comment does not address any of the legitimate arguments you've been presented with in this thread, neither wrt the issue of racism in US policing (see previous post with summaries of studies and links to references that collectively show that racism is a significant problem in policing) nor wrt the issue of prejudice (see Loki's objection to your ecological fallacy, my objection to your philosophy of being "on guard", Hazir's post about instinct vs. judgement, Fuzzy's posts about the bigotry inherent in your original account of your recent experience, the arguments about Travellers being regarded as an ethnic group, etc). I understand that you have a deep and abiding love for English Rules Football, but can we please stop moving the goalposts at least until you've caught up with the discussion?
Rand, I still don't know what you consider an "ex member". How do you define that?
Maybe you should call them that to their face. That is the proper way to gauge whether a term is appropriate or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't care what your government calls them - after all, they don't have the greatest of track records when it comes to avoiding bigotry.
Why? Did you miss the fact I said I wouldn't cut someone off until they cross the line? That this whole side discussion I've only discussed being alert and not acting out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I have addressed that repeatedly. I said that it needs to be addressed. I have to the best of my knowledge been responding to all the others too though it's hard to keep track when everyone is jumping on you.Quote:
That said, your comment does not address any of the legitimate arguments you've been presented with in this thread, neither wrt the issue of racism in US policing (see previous post with summaries of studies and links to references that collectively show that racism is a significant problem in policing)
Rand's personal flaws aside, I really don't see how supporting state-sanctioned violence and discrimination against an entire race because that race is disproportionately likely to commit certain kinds of crimes is anything but racism, an attitude that HAS a material impact when held by enough people.
Yes, weird that everyone is jumping on you.
I have done. :o I would not have used pikey, but gypsy is what they call themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Dudes and esp. drunk dudes are far more likely to engage in violence and sexual harrassment or even assault compared to sober women. You should be wary, you should view them with great suspicion--or, if you care that much about the safety of your "female staff", bar drinking and dudes from your bar outright.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As far as I can tell, you have, by turns, attempted to minimize the problem (few bad apples, not very common, nowhere near as bad as what police are subjected to) or claim, in various ways, that the blatant racial disparities are justified (black people are more violent, black people are more likely to be criminals, cops are more at risk from black people, etc). If you have acknowledged that racial disparities are common and persist even when you take plausible alternative explanations into account, you have not done so very clearly, which is why you have been presented with the same arguments over and over again.Quote:
I have addressed that repeatedly. I said that it needs to be addressed.
More likely you believe that your posts about guns constituted an acknowledgement of the fact that there are great unjustified racial disparities in the US justice system, esp. in police interventions.
Again I've not talked about barring anyone who hasn't yet acted inappropriately. But yes if someone has had too much I won't serve them any more. In fact it is illegal to serve alcohol to someone who is drunk ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I have said time and again that racism is inappropriate and that steps should be taken to address it. Such as increased use of body cams and disciplinary action to remove bad apples from the force even if they stop short of criminal actions.Quote:
As far as I can tell, you have, by turns, attempted to minimize the problem (few bad apples, not very common, nowhere near as bad as what police are subjected to) or claim, in various ways, that the blatant racial disparities are justified (black people are more violent, black people are more likely to be criminals, cops are more at risk from black people, etc). If you have acknowledged that racial disparities are common and persist even when you take plausible alternative explanations into account, you have not done so very clearly, which is why you have been presented with the same arguments over and over again.
More likely you believe that your posts about guns constituted an acknowledgement of the fact that there are great unjustified racial disparities in the US justice system, esp. in police interventions.
Ex-member, Rand. How do you define that?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Third time you've dodged the question.
You explicitly said the police are justified in treating African Americans with more suspicion and be quicker to resort to violence against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Same as any community. What's an ex-Jehova's Witness? Someone who used to be a member of a community but now isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Only on aggregate and only because of the actions of African Americans. If those actions weren't happening they wouldn't be justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If the Police are looking for an armed and dangerous black man they're not going to be shooting at a random white grandmother that they believe matches the description.
And so we're back to you ignoring the evidence presented in this thread as well as in the BLM thread.
What evidence?
I think you have to look at things realistically and stop viewing things solely through a racial lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If you have a community that has the vast majority of crime in a city - should the police spend extra time there? If that community is home to many suspects for multiple as of yet unresolved crimes should more people be stopped and investigated? If that community is 80%+ black that's quickly going to skew data to show 'omg the police a racist!!!' when in fact they are doing intelligent policing.
Regardless of the ethnic makeup of a community I would expect police to do what makes sense.
Similarly if you are flying in from Middle Eastern countries and you fit some of the common profile markers of a terrorist I'd want additional diligence during security screenings. Is that objectionable to you?
Are you talking of the more numerous/active white christian type, or the fear mongered brown with a beard type?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I would like to refer both of the village idiots to the links to studies of racial bias and the DoJ investigations presented in this thread and the BLM thread so that they do not embarrass themselves or waste time presenting inane arguments that are not borne out by the evidence.
Please stop with the straw men or find me anywhere postulating that there is no racial bias :rolleyes:
The white Christian types you name should be given all due attention yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Who said everyone?
Intelligence should be used to evaluate risks but the notions that either only non whites are a risk, or that everyone equally is, is an utter moron.
The idea that terrorist is a non white thing is just dumb given that whites have caused more terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
:noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I don't see the word everyone in Lewkowski's post.
What are the "common profile markers of a terrorist" would be a much better retort.
If ignorance is your tea of choice for today than you must wait for lewk to dig his hole deeper.
I'm not defending Lewk I'm talking to you not him. White terrorist groups have been a major problem for decades so it would take an utter moron to think we shouldn't use our intelligence against them. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use our intelligence and should just act randomly.
Going back to earlier in the thread I want to reply to some points.
Surely that depends upon whether it works or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It's a good job in your world someone handling thousands of pounds of cash and stock - let alone a legal duty to mitigate risks to public safety - has no requirement for good, accurate, reliable judgement.Quote:
That may be lesson no. 1 in management security training, but it's poor advice in any context that requires a person to develop good, accurate, reliable judgement--such as in law enforcement, medicine, social work, etc.
Its a risk yes, it also has the potential to make your judgement accurately calibrated. Mine is very accurate from a lot of experience. More than I would like.Quote:
It causes selective perception and establishes a one-directional calibration mechanism that ultimately risks making your judgement grossly miscalibrated.
Indeed I don't disagree. But given that unlike on this side of the pond an American officer who doesn't get "on guard" when he is in grave danger is more likely to end up in the morgue himself then I don't blame him for perceiving threats. Better safe than sorry.Quote:
In law enforcement, this attitude has severe consequences. When a person such as a police officer is "on guard", he perceives the world in a different way, and he perceives that which has caused him to be on guard in a different way. His wariness alters his perception of anything that may potentially be a threat, and lowers his threshold for acting on the perception of a threat. With time, the inclination to perceive threats--even where there is none--increases, accuracy decreases and the threshold for action is lowered with devastating outcomes for innocent people caught in the crosshairs of officers with systematically corrupted judgement. We see this clearly in the evidence from studies that find that police officers excessively and inappropriately target black and hispanic men, subject them to illegal or just unnecessary searches with a lower hit-rate than among white targets, subject them to greater levels of force even when inappropriate, etc. Lesson no. 1 in management security training needs to be modified if it is to be incorporated into police training.
If the perceived danger was false and the evidence was that the perceived risk was unsupported then I would think we have an issue that needs addressing. If the perceived risk is real then it is good to perceive it.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Which is what I did. I treated him well until after he crossed the line. Once he had crossed the line then I took action.Quote:
Your instinct will typically tell you that you can expect trouble with someone who looks like someone you had trouble with before. Your good judgement will tell you to keep past experience in mind but treat the person at hand as if he's a tabula rasa. Untill such moment that he isn't an unknown quantity to you any longer.
Which should factor into your judgement. If these "scary looking" guys are very friendly then why consider them scary?Quote:
For the last year and a half I've been living in a minority-majority neighborhood, with all kinds of 'scary looking' people around me most of the time. Yet I tell anybody who bothers to ask me that this must be one of the most welcoming and friendly parts of the entire city of Amsterdam. One of those places where people aren't afraid to wish you a good day even though they don't know you. Or stop to have a little chat about the weather if they actually do know you. A place where big burly black guys in the gym politely ask you if you are using a machine. Simply because that's the way we do things.
If on the other hand there was a street in Amsterdam where you had been mugged whenever you walked down it then it would not be unreasonable to be on guard next time you walk down that street - or even try to avoid walking down that street. If the mugger was consistently a white man in a pin striped suit then it may be reasonable to be on guard next time you walk down the street and see a white man in a pin-striped suit. Better safe than sorry.
Riiight. You realize that being an ex-member of JW entails cutting all ties to the organization? That what you want? Someone figuratively making an orphan out of him- or herself?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Nice.