Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.
I've seen ads for such junkets in some mainstream periodicals from time to time.
They never came out and said it, but it was fairly obvious what was on the block.

Relapse wrote:All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.
I've seen ads for such junkets in some mainstream periodicals from time to time.
They never came out and said it, but it was fairly obvious what was on the block.

I seriously doubt the 13 year old girl they imprisoned and raped for weeks on end was asking them to pay for sex. Just saying.

Neither do I think that the girls sold into sexual slavery in countries such as Thailand enjoy their encounters.
The concept is the same, however, underaged, unwilling girls coerced, drugged, or manipulated in some way to have sex with adults. The difference is in the shape of the eyes of the victim and predator.

Relapse wrote:Neither do I think that the girls sold into sexual slavery in countries such as Thailand enjoy their encounters.
The concept is the same, however, underaged, unwilling girls coerced, drugged, or manipulated in some way to have sex with adults. The difference is in the shape of the eyes of the victim and predator.

Pretty much bang on here.


Good stuff throughout the thread, though.

Relapse wrote:All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.

Yes, they are also criminals.

Melissia wrote:

Relapse wrote:All right, I am now going to play devil's advocate here and bring up the subject of westerners going to such places as Thailand to have a go at the underage prostitutes.

Yes, they are also criminals.

I think the point Relapse was making is that they might not be considered racist.

What about all the eastern european girls that get stuck in human trafficing and end up for the enjoyment of white patrons all over brothels in Europe?

Define 'White' as a race or ethnic group.

I'm assuming by bringing up sex tourism and trafficking your saying what happened is fine because it happens elsewhere?

The fact of the matter is that these men targeted up to 50 white English girls over an extended period of time, based upon their perceptions of worthlessness and inferiority. If it was simply a case of perversion they would have taken victims from all backgrounds/race/ethnicity.

Medium of Death wrote:I'm assuming by bringing up sex tourism and trafficking your saying what happened is fine because it happens elsewhere?

That is actually not at all what I am saying.

What I am saying is that it is amazing to see so much outrage for "Pakistani (insert ethnic group of your choosing) are pretators and racists for preying on white girls. (follow with generic version of send them back to where they came from/get them out of my country)" while ignoring decades of sex trafficking in Europe. Should it be considered racist that everybody is upset when their white women get raped, but not that worked up when eastern European women get raped?

It is not that this should be okay because it happened before, it is a case of "why are you just now getting pissed when women getting groomed has been a problem for how many years?"

And You somehow think that we wouldn't be outraged at the sex trafficking?

I think you'll find Sex Trafficking, Prostitution and Grooming are all issues the UK has dealt with before so we aren't treating it as a new concept.

How do you stop European sex trafficking from Britain? You don't. You can attempt to stop it happening in Britain, but that's it.

To say that White British people aren't disgusted by the idea of Sex Trafficking because it doesn't affect 'us' is ridiculous and pretty offensive.

This is exactly the attitude that prevented the mistreatment of these girls being stopped earlier.

I would hope that trafficking would be a problem and being offensive. And if it is then I am happy, and I am glad if steps are taken to stop it.

But I am also sharing what I am seeing in this thread: They (people that are different) raped our white women.

Racism may have influenced their targeting of white girls.

But is racism also influencing the outrage?

Just throwing the possibility out there, you don't have to agree or like it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And sometimes I just like playing the devils advocate as well.

d-usa wrote:But is racism also influencing the outrage?

No.

I have no affinity for Brits!

I like my guns and my silk-lined bear arms too much (what would a Texan do without bear arms?).

Melissia wrote:

d-usa wrote:But is racism also influencing the outrage?

No.

I have no affinity for Brits!

I like my guns and my silk-lined bear arms too much (what would a Texan do without bear arms?).

Fair enough,

and I just want to clarify again that I do not mean to minimize what happened to the victims here.

Is it unreasonable to expect White British people to be outraged that White British girls are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity?

By your logic I shouldn't get annoyed about people going hungry in this country because of starvation in Africa.

The question I am asking is this:

Would White British people be this outraged if all the victims in Britain were Pakistani girls, or are they more outraged because the victims were 'White British girls'?

If you want to continue to state that I am making "well sex trafficing is old so you say it must be okay" or "starvation is okay because kids in Africa are starving" arguments, then go ahead. If you don't want to hear or understand the simple question I am asking, then there is really nothing I can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To quote and highlight your own words:

Medium of Death wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect White British people to be outraged that White British girls are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity?

Which pretty much makes my point.

Why not simply say "Is it unreasonable to expect people to be outraged that people are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity"?

Melissia wrote:And You somehow think that we wouldn't be outraged at the sex trafficking?

Aagreed. I have more than sufficient outrage for both.

d-usa wrote:Why not simply say "Is it unreasonable to expect people to be outraged that people are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity"?

Because you seem to be suggesting we make an exception if we're of the same race as the victim.

d-usa wrote:The question I am asking is this:

Would White British people be this outraged if all the victims in Britain were Pakistani girls, or are they more outraged because the victims were 'White British girls'?

If you want to continue to state that I am making "well sex trafficing is old so you say it must be okay" or "starvation is okay because kids in Africa are starving" arguments, then go ahead. If you don't want to hear or understand the simple question I am asking, then there is really nothing I can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To quote and highlight your own words:

Medium of Death wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect White British people to be outraged that White British girls are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity?

Which pretty much makes my point.

Why not simply say "Is it unreasonable to expect people to be outraged that people are being targeted because of their race/ethnicity"?

I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another. Your question is fething irrelevant to me and likely Melissia.

Well, let me try to make it pretty simple and clear that this is not what I am saying Melissia:

I don't think that me make an exeption in our outrage if the victim is of the same race as us.

I wonder if there is EXTRA outrage because the victim is of the same race as us.

If those two simple paragraphs don't get my point across then I just suck at communicating and shall give up.

If it's people you know better and/or empathize with more, of course there's more outrage.

Melissia wrote:If it's people you know better and/or empathize with more, of course there's more outrage.

Should that be that way though, or should we feel the same for everybody? Of course that can easily go into more of a philosophical side of things.

And again, just want to make clear that I am not trying to make the crime any less significant or the victims suffering any less meaningful.

You are saying White British people only care because it's happening to White British people.

Is there a problem if White British people take issue with the direct targeting of their ethnicity by other groups? No, because it's a fairly realistic and widespread reaction that happens throughout all race/ethnic/cultural groups. People will be outraged if it happens to other races/ethnicities but if that person is of the same ethnic background it creates a greater empathic resonance.

You can sit up on your pedestal of 'everyone should empathise with everyone equally' if you want, but the reality is somewhat different.

I hate saying White British, it's just British to me and should be just 'British' on consensus forms imho . I just needed to try and get the point across.

Medium of Death wrote:You are saying White British people only care because it's happening to White British people.

Is there a problem if White British people take issue with the direct targeting of their ethnicity by other groups? No, because it's a fairly realistic and widespread reaction that happens throughout all race/ethnic/cultural groups. People will be outraged if it happens to other races/ethnicities but if that person is of the same ethnic background it creates a greater empathic resonance.

You can sit up on your pedestal of 'everyone should empathise with everyone equally' if you want, but the reality is somewhat different.

I hate saying White British, it's just British to me and should be just 'British' on consensus forms imho . I just needed to try and get the point across.

I'm not saying they only care because of it, I am just saying that they may care more because of it.

And maybe "be equally angry about anything bad that happens to anybody regardless of creed/race/nationality" is a pipe dream. We can still talk about it though, after all that is what a forum is all about.

d-usa wrote:Should that be that way though, or should we feel the same for everybody?

Would you prefer people be continually burnt out about everything, or to do something even if it's just local?

I don't know about extra outrage because the victims were white, but there would certainly be outcry over any gang caught doing this (or sex trafficing/tourism etc) regardless of their race/religion or those of their victims. You are not exactly talking about purse snatching here, but destroying lives and ripping away the basic rights and freedoms that most people in the developed world take more or less for granted.

It would be difficult to quantify outrage as the details of every case vary, but certainly there has been satisfaction over taking out rings of paedos and trafficers in the past. I think so much of this outcry is because it is happening *here and now*, rather than because of the colours of those involved.

I'm sure that if the crime was going on in a town just down the road from you (as Liverpool is for most of the UK) you'd be far more inclined to pull down the fence and use the 2 by 4's to break some skulls

Maybe that deserves it's own thread and getting this thread closed only means Matty will not be impressed hunt us down and skin us alive.

d-usa wrote:The question I am asking is this:

Would White British people be this outraged if all the victims in Britain were Pakistani girls, or are they more outraged because the victims were 'White British girls'?

SilverMK2 wrote:I don't know about extra outrage because the victims were white, but there would certainly be outcry over any gang caught doing this (or sex trafficing/tourism etc) regardless of their race/religion or those of their victims. You are not exactly talking about purse snatching here, but destroying lives and ripping away the basic rights and freedoms that most people in the developed world take more or less for granted.

It would be difficult to quantify outrage as the details of every case vary, but certainly there has been satisfaction over taking out rings of paedos and trafficers in the past. I think so much of this outcry is because it is happening *here and now*, rather than because of the colours of those involved.

I'm sure that if the crime was going on in a town just down the road from you (as Liverpool is for most of the UK) you'd be far more inclined to pull down the fence and use the 2 by 4's to break some skulls

I think Silver has answered your question perfectly, d-usa.

These individuals are disgusting human beings, and I am virtually certain that there would the same amount of outrage no matter what mix of ethnicities their victims were. I do not think there is outrage because the victims were white, I think there is outrage because the victims were vulnerable, underage girls.

Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.

If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?

Well, or French, or Indian.

I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I'm not British. I'm so not British nearly all my ancestors took shots at British at one time or another.

If your one of the few Americans that is actually correct about their ancestors, and your forebears actually fought on the side of the rebels during the revolution, doesn't that make you pretty much 100% British then?

Well, or French, or Indian.

I don't think anyone else fought against the British did they?

The Dutch?
Either way as long as 'our' guys got a chance to shoot back i'm okay with it...