|
I mean nonsense in the sense of changing the subject to something that does not remotely respond to the issue.Whether it's ad hominen, non-sequitur, or whatever. Changing the subject from the complaint to the complainant is not arguing in good faith, IMO.
Ok I get that. It's not so much changing the subject, more a case of answering a question with a question. It's a deflection tactic in debate, almost to the point of instinctive. He's probably waiting to find the right time to slip this comment into his airtime. I agree that's not arguing in good faith, but then again that's identity politics plus television. It's how live political debate tends to work on tv, so it's not really his fault. And it's not like his comments are irrelevant.
Let's not forget I find his comments distasteful, because he assumes she is not British. I'm basically arguing about a hypothetical situation where this woman is not British.
I can agree with degrees of skepticism about your true intent, but it doesn't change my opinion that if you're informed of the history and your grievance is made in good faith, then that should count more than any other factors in discussing that grievance.
Ok, but if you come from a different civilised country, and culturally relate to that country, then even if you're educated and on solid moral ground, it's still not a surprise to be asked "well what keeps you here?". I can only speak for myself, but when I ask that question, it's because I wouldn't stay in a country if I held their culture in contempt. Not unless I was being paid a lot of money, and in that event I'd keep a low profile until I was back home. So it's more a sense of bemusement than any kind of bigotry.
Who do you think are these infiltrators?
Like I said to cocco, it's coming from all sides. Antifa, patriots, white supremacists, I'm sure black supremacists do exist and are active in some capacity, there's anarchists, basically people at the extremes whose agenda is not equality.
Why has their radical agenda not been found out by the FBI?
idk, maybe it was, or maybe they slip through the net, or maybe the feds didn't uncover any illegal activity, I can't possibly know the answer to this question.
Is it the same group responsible for the taking down of public statues / monuments in the US as in the UK? Around the world?
Here in the UK, a Robert the Bruce statue have been vandalised. He fought against Edward 1 alongside William Wallace at the end of the 13th century, he might not have seen a black man in his entire life. Yet his statue is daubed with "racist" and "BLM" graffiti. I can't imagine anyone from BLM actually did that, it's much more likely to be Scottish politics at play here,
Lots of different people have different agendas, some of them have absolutely nothing to do with BLM.
If nationality is being used as an excuse to disregard knowledge based criticism made in good faith, then that's a con, IMO.
I don't think it's "disregarding" criticism. In this case she's talking about the status of Churchill and Nelson statues, two huge figures in British history. If you're going to go publicly gunning for people like that, you're going to entice some emotional responses. To respond to such criticism with words to the effect of "you choose to live here" is fair game, provided of course that the person does indeed choose to live here. That's why nationality is relevant.
|