- There seems to be an alarming habit of liberal people being angry at what they perceive as racism/fascism and then actually responding in a fascist way themselves : "everyone believes the same as us, you're not the same as us, you should be prevented from speaking"
- 1. Banning the word Paki - Some people complained on Radio 4 Feedback that the the word should be called the "P-word", cos it's so offensive.
- i. Perspective - it is a rarely used word. It was used in a private conversation between 2 minor celebrities. It's not really newsworthy.
- ii. It's just a word Yes some people maybe have used it as an insult, but it's their behavior that is the offensive not the word itself. For most people it's just a short form of the word Pakistani, Paki shop - a shop run by people who seem to be Pakistani. People might use the words fat or lazy in an insulting way, but we wouldn't ban them.

- Some people wrote to Radio 4 to say the word Paki should be banned as they find it offensive. Look some people get too irrationally emotional and touchy in Princess Diana death way , but they are wrong and irrational and we shouldn't change the English Language to accommodate them.
- Yes I am white male, but there are words like : kaffir the derogatory word for non-muslim, but I don't feel it should be banned ... neither should words like, goy, gweilo, gaijin, athiest, Pommie, Scot, northerner be banned. Words are not offensive themselves it's their use - if someone said "smelly northerners" then that's racist and offensive but not "northerner" itself.

- People have pointed out that of course it has been used in a positive sense "Paki power" signs at the cricket match. I noticed that Indian newspaper headlines use Pak or Pak every day ... Do we really expect them to use the long form.

- 2. If you don't believe the same as us "liberals", then you are evil. ... The behaviour of liberals towards BNP's Nick Griffin was outrageous - refusing to let him speak, then ganging up to push questions attacking him and then butting in before he can reply.
- Saying "He doesn't have the right to speak, he's only a fascist". Surely that's not so different from saying "He doesn't have the right to speak, he 's only a black". They fail to understand the principle of free speech that anyone is free to think anything they like, only bad actions can be policed.

- Ironically it's like saying "You are not one of us liberals; so you don't have the right to speak"
- 3. Closing down the debate When people try to open up talk about immigration the liberals react By tutting - "everyone believes the same us, there is no debate, immigration is a good thing, ", hence the major issue of people perceiving that culture is being changed in a negative way is not talked about. So resentment builds up inside people. If 50 British people moved to a Spanish street then surely we could talk about their impact.

- Liberals adopt a similar attitude in other things "You have no right to question some homosexual lifestyles." Instead of patiently explaining they take offense and so come across as patronising and alienate people.

- It's just arbitary statistics there is no black race we know that between different black groups there is a bigger genetic differences than between the average black person and the average white person.

- I can understand people don't like to called names or insulted, but all to often people take offence when no offence is meant.

- When professor X says something like "The African nations will never succeed cos they are less intelligent than us" this is taking science and turning it into a rascist statement, because he has made such a huge generalisation. He could say country X is less rich than country Y mainly because the people in country X are less intelligent".. It's just an opinion which he might be able to give evidence for so he should be able to say it, but he should be able to say the first statement no matter how racist it sounds

- Scientists should not be afraid to say anything even if it is likely that they turn out to be wrong. By stifling the debate the progress towards truth is restricted and slowed. You answer the doubtful statements with logic not by telling people to shut up.

- Ragi Omagh tackled the idea in a channel 4 programme and although they are very intelligent people the prog wasn't very good . They couldn't resist the temptation to try to disprove and say black people are not less intelligent., but they couldn't see how rascist they are in doing this.

- One black sociology professor attempted to jsutify black peoples low achievement in intelligence tests, by saying "well black kids don't like to do well in school or read books etc. cos that's white people behaviour and they don't want to be seen to be 'acting white'", You what ? surely that's racist behaviour.

- What a fucking abortion : It was a psychology prog intended to help us understand racism but it failed for 2 reasons
1. they screened the programme even though it's dependent on following the experiment properly all the way through. It's no use in having half an experiment at a crucial point they screwed up the procedure.
2. they screwed up in selecting the groups cos they tried to be too politically correct.
In the original experiment a group of white kids are split up into brown eyed group and other; the first group is favoured by the administration the second group is descriminated against. Very quickly each group adopts a psychology role. Group B the victim : unhappy and sully. Group A the part of the oppressor acting in a far more oppressive and racist way that they were asked to, genuinely believing "brown eyes" are superior . But here to be politically correct the pool included 40% non white which meant that they all were in the brown eyed group and 90% of the "whites" were in group B.

- problem 1. Now it 2009 so once group A were told for the purposes of the experiment they were to oppressors 2 white people said they couldn't be racist and left. So now the groups are polarised in terms of skin colour. So instead of getting to the end of the experiment and realising how they had been conditioned to be oppressists racists the non-whites just felt they were getting their own back for what they perceive as a lifetime of oppression.

- problem 2 - far from being sully Group B wouldn't accept being oppressed.

- problem 3 I would argue that she didn't do her own experiment properly.. Instead of treating the entire Group A sympathetically, she picked on the white people when they disagreed to her, thereby setting a precedent for everyone to see.

- problem 4 In the last stage they rig an intelligence test so Group B would think "wow we really are more stupid", but they scewed up the procedure so instead of accepting the role of oppressor the last white woman in group A blurted out "but we all cheated"

- I note that this was politically correct helpful for the TV company cos if the experiment had played out to the end then they'd have been asking a group of mainly non-whites why they so easily adopted the role of oppressive racists.

- It was interesting to see that the 2 professional psychologists didn't stick to science when the experiment started to go wrong, attempting to justify by saying "ah the white people don't can't understand that the discrimination they face in life is just not in the same league as the racism black people regularly experience, they are in denial"
- rubbish it's much more the case that non-white people seem to be racist all the time, but not realise they are ..yes some percentage of white people are systematically racist, but you frequently see things like black people waving to each other just cos they are black, black comedy clubs, black music awards, black newspapers etc.