IDK if the optics are different in the UK, but police bringing threatening dogs to a protest in the US would be so much worse than simply saying there are vicious dogs protecting the White House, which there probably are.
Printable View
IDK if the optics are different in the UK, but police bringing threatening dogs to a protest in the US would be so much worse than simply saying there are vicious dogs protecting the White House, which there probably are.
You would not ever get me on a horse. Fuck that. I like dogs a lot more. Horses are ok, but if I share a field with one, I'm aware of where it is at all times, and I'm never directly behind it. With that said, people who work with horses would not agree with this comment of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Normally I'd agree with you Mojo, but we're kinda beyond optics at this point I think.
Also, what are the optics of bringing military police, or police with no insignia/nametags? If you're trying to move people out of some area, barking dogs seems less harmful than shooting them in the eye with rubber bullets. But what do i know about crowd control - nothing really.
Dogs are used to really shit people up. Horses intimidate people without the need for snarling teeth, it's a lot more subtle. You can't just let the dogs off the lead into a mob, so I don't see what purpose they serve at a protest.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'll get on a horse for a nice quiet ride in the country. I wouldn't ride one anywhere it's likely to get startled though.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Dunno, I think this would be pretty scary. But yeah you obviously can't let one loose on the crowd or anything.
https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/res...onsive-gallery
I'd rather walk. Country horses are not trained for crowd control, a badger could probably startle it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yeah. The optics of having people dressed like police and acting like police, but not clearly marked as police was enough to get the mayors of those places to call it out, so really bad optics, too.
Still not hearkening to black people being hunted and set upon by dogs from many decades ago. When the optics reflect a past transgression, I assume they bring on a more visceral response.
It'd be effective at driving a crowd back, but the cops and dog are both exposed to incoming missiles. Better to have riot shields with batons waving about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
St Louis has mounted police. The horses are trained to be familiar with city noises and smells, and are often seen near any large gathering of people. I think the advantage is mostly a higher vantage point above the crowds for police, and slightly more mobility. Plus, like ong said, people will generally get out of the way of a horse.
I don't imagine they have much opportunity to train the horses to be familiar with the sounds of a protesting crowd, and I'd bet they don't train the horses to have stuff thrown at them. The ASPCA would make a big stink about that, I assume.
ASPCA = American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
There is that...Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
AFAIK, most police dogs are trained for their noses, not their teeth.
I.e. they're drug-sniffing dogs or bomb-sniffing dogs (and not both).
I've certainly seen police demonstrations at - like county fairs - where the police show how they train attack dogs, though.
They don't use alsatians for their noses.
We need more protesters like this guy.
https://twitter.com/TheoShantonas/st...08359912550403
IDK what kinds of dogs they use.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I saw German Shepherds at the county fairs I mentioned, but those are the attack dogs.
When I see a sniffer dog on the Metro train, it's not a GS, something much smaller.
This is beyond parody at this point.
The only one in the entire factory not wearing a mask.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/p...bs/3153622001/
Alsatians are German shepherds, and yes they're used as basically attack dogs. They would possibly assist cops who are going to break down a door and go charging into a house. Or, if you were going to use a dog for crowd control, this would be your guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
For drugs and bombs, idk specifically what breeds they use, but it will almost certainly be a hound, like a bloodhound maybe.
Apparently the most common dog in the UK police is the Malinois, a breed I'm unfamiliar with. It's a shepherd dog, they use them to guard the White House. They have good noses, so maybe we don't use hounds all that much. I just assumed we would, they have the best noses iirc.
Cool. Thanks.
I heard once that bloodhounds don't necessarily have better sense of smell, but their long, flappy ears dragging on the ground when their nose is down to sniff helps stir up odors.
IDK if that's true, as IDK how to quantify how good a dog's sense of smell is.
Yeah. It's not exactly what it sounds like, AFAICT.
So it sounds like a lot of noise and promises that will almost certainly placate people now, with the end result looking much the same as the current police.Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
I don't think anyone with a reasonable thought in their head would expect a lack of police to reduce looting and crime, or not result in rampant vigilantism. IDK, though. I just can't imagine otherwise.
Racism, by definition, is prejudices based on race or color. We all have prejudices, they're an inherent property of our minds. Our brains have limited capacity, and the intricacies of human interaction and everything we interact with in the world are complex, it takes a lot of effort to fully understand them, weigh all things individually and apply them to all of our decisions and actions.
So our brain likes to take shortcuts, and it's pretty good at that. Conceptualizing things is far easier if you can assign clear classifications, put things in simple marked boxes. A grapefruit is a citrus. A bat is a flying rat. The chinese and japanese are from the same general area, and may have some similar visual features, let's group them together. A lot of this is benign, but it will also often lead to oversimplifications and generalizations that can be harmful, even vicious. But we all do it, automatically. We're all inherently racist. The important thing is to be aware of this, and actively challenge your preconceptions, making sure your decisions and actions aren't based on biased thinking.
My point is, imo everyone is racist (or at the minimum highly susceptible to being), unless they realize and accept this, and take active steps to not be. Thoughts?
Ok, let's just define "prejudice" for clarity...Quote:
Racism, by definition, is prejudices based on race or color.
Quote:
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Not necessarily. The Chinese and Japanese are from the same geographic area and share some visual characteristics. So let's call them "East Asian", or even "Oriental". That's not prejudice, that's an observation based on reality. Of course, they do not look identical, so if you were to say "they all look the same to me" then you're being prejudiced because this statement is not based on reality.Quote:
We all have prejudices
When we put people in boxes based on race, that is not racism.
idk why I'm so silly but this amuses me as I read it back. I mean if you literally put people in actual boxes based on their race, that's totally racist.Quote:
When we put people in boxes based on race, that is not racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Pretty much agree. We're all hard wired to use heuristics (shortcuts), and we're also hard-wired to be tribal, to think in terms of 'us' and 'them'. When you see someone whose face is completely different to yours, your brain wants to classify them as a 'them'. I don't think we can get away from that.
However, there's a difference between what you might call a hard-wired preference and a lot of the nasty shit that goes on in the world based on race. It's not what you think or feel that makes a difference, it's how you act. And it takes a conscious effort to recognize how you treat people differently based on appearance and another conscious effort to avoid doing it. That's hard, and I think a lot of people just can't be bothered. And there's some proportion of people who are just cunts too, and use race as an excuse to be a cunt to another person.
When we box people in the same category according to one attribute, there's a whole plethora of biases (group attribution, halo effect, outgroup homogeneity bias etc.) that start telling us the people in the box share other attributes also. Putting people in boxes isn't (necessarily) prejudiced or racism, but it can easily lead to it. I think we're all predisposed to being racist, it's inherent in the way we think and see the world. Racism doesn't exist because evil people do evil things, it's because regular people let things happen, because they have infinite empathy and excuses for their own actions/inaction, because they think it's someone else's problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Agree completely. Our whole evolutionary baggage tells us we should distrust anyone we don't know or doesn't look familiar, we like to lump people in categories and tend to easily assign negative qualities to them, we feel threatened by anything new and that we perceive as a challenge to our own culture. Treating every person you meet in your life as an individual, giving them the benefit of the doubt, that's massively hard work and I don't think anyone achieves that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, it's not. This is clearly demonstrable. Here's a funny video, ~8:30 in length which makes the point rather well.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5pnDkrCsDQ&feature=emb_logo
Round 1 - nailed it. You're not fooling me when it comes to Japan. I was like "C is definitely Japanese, A looks Japanese too, the black girl isn't ethnically Chinese, Japanese or Korean, and the last one looks like a trannie so fuck knows".
Holy shit. I paused it to make that comment, unpaused it an now it turns out that I'm right about the trannie too. I'm not even lying.
Round 2 - fuck knows, Africans do all look alike, we're talking about Chinese and Japanese people here, who do not look alike. *upause* haha they're Carribean. I did guess one guy as Kenyan because he looked like he could run for days.
Round 3 is fucking funny.
Round 4 - could be any of them, fuck knows. I'm guessing the Japanese guy because I can tell where he's from. Oh, it was a woman. I should have guessed.
Round 5 - Dunno the formula, I'm gonna guess the white guy who looks a bit like Sid James. Ha, it was the cartoon guy. It crossed my mind but I'll be the first to admit I'm a cartoonist, there's no way I thought a drawing of a person was capable of solving difficult equations.
Well I nailed round one, and that's the one that mattered. In conclusion, Chinese and Japanese people do not look alike.
I seriously bombed on every one. I could have probably done slightly better in round 1 if I knew it was a trick question, but as for the rest... I just suck at that.
Also... I want to know the story of how that cartoon solved a problem that was considered unsolvable and what their path through life was that they're now making funny YouTube videos.
I thought I failed the first round, I basically thought "well A looks Japanese but C is definitely Japanese so I guess they basically found the most Japanese looking Chinese girl". There was clearly a trick though, I thought "maybe the black one is Korean by birth" but that would be cheating because it's really an ethnicity test, not a nationality test. I settled on A being a Japanese looking Chinese, B being not ethnically East Asian, C definitely Japanese, and D trannie. I'm calling that "nailed".
You were right to make the point that my comment "they all look the same" isn't necessarily racist, but if the differences are obvious, then it is. Maybe it's not so obvious to most people what the physical difference is between the Chinese and Japanese, I guess I watch more Oriental porn than most.
The skin of your elbow and the skin of your ball-sack completely lack pain receptors. You can pinch either one really really hard and you will feel no pain. Fact.
Skimmed the last page--
MMM, I saw a post where you seemed to be saying that under policing was an issue in black communities. The opposite is the case. An example would be that everyone smokes weed, but black people are overrepresented in weed charges. Anyway, I think you do an admirable job of trying to dig down to the root causes, but at the same time I think you stop short, as many do. Violent gangs are a sexy topic, and kicking in doors and rounding them up sounds exciting-- a real carpe diem, heavy metal blaring, american hero type of approach. But the gangs are not the root cause of drug dependence and abuse, the conditions that cause people to feel the need to turn to drugs is the problem. As long as those conditions exist and go untreated, there will be a market for drugs. The more intensely enforced the prohibitions are, the higher the prices will go. The higher the prices, the more those suffering from substance addiction will turn to crime to support their sickness.
I do agree that criminalizing the users and low tier dealers is absurd and fruitless-- but taking out those at the top can be just as fraught. We saw that happen in Chicago, which caused power vacuums, fractured alliances, and made mediation between the now the more numerous factions far more difficult. The same can be seen in Mexico, Colombia, etc.
We don't need more policing in black and brown communities, we need more healthcare, social workers, funding for schools, grocery stores (seriously, look into "food deserts"), etc.
I agree with all of that, Boost.
My use of the word underpolicing was in error. I was trying to get at the heart of what you are saying, but I didn't understand the fullness of the situation (still don't, frankly).
I've learned a lot in the past week, and will continue to learn more as time goes on.
I'm not well suited to deal with social problems, and I've let that allow me to ignore them and focus on teaching physics.
However, I can no longer pretend that this problem can possibly be addressed, let alone solved, unless everyone who believes in justice and equality under the law makes the emotionally difficult move of facing the real issues head on.
I am brought to tears on a daily basis these past couple of weeks, and while that's a selfish reason, perhaps, to get involved, it's where I am. If this collection of issues is going to tear me apart emotionally whether or not I try to be involved, then I'm damn sure going to be involved.
To wit, and I don't know how it will go, because I've only signed up to be a part of it, I've enrolled in a program called, "Me and White Supremacy," which makes the following statements about what it's cultivating
I'm not trying to brag about anything, or virtue signal, here. I'm just saying that I'm facing my ignorance and trying to find out what I can do to be involved and to be a part of affecting change. For me, that starts with education, and this group feels like it is offering what I need right now.Quote:
What this space is not:
It is not a substitute for direct action and engagement in local or national issues.
It is not a one-time checklist item for being an “ally.”
It is not a space of proving our “wokeness” or that you are "one of the good ones."
It is not a space to play intellectual games with the pain and trauma of Black people.
What this space is:
It is a space for vulnerability, honest reflection, feedback, and movement into sustainable engagement in anti-racist work.
It is a space to start where you’re at and welcome others wherever they are starting at.
It is a space for moving from the theoretical to the practical and concrete.
It is a space for supporting each other in honestly and authentically unpacking our own white supremacy and anti-Blackness and making changes in our lives.
If anyone else feels like they may need this, too, here's a link to sign up.
Yeah man, parsing through all this is not easy, but it's a worthwhile journey.
I too, while not emotionally dead or anything, don't tend to find interest in the parts of social issues that most do. It can be frustrating, because I want to talk about strategy and tactics, and when honestly discussing these facets, you often trigger those whose minds don't spin that way.
Something always rubbed me wrong about the black history curriculums I've experienced, and this twitter thread really helped me solidify some thoughts on why exactly. In history class, broadly, we learn about people taking up arms and fighting for what's right, yet that whole side of the civil rights movement has been erased from the classroom, and subsumed by a Disney'ified rendering of MLK and Rosa Parks. I don't think it's a grand conspiracy, mostly just a combination of unconscious bias and well meaning editing for the sake of young audiences. But as a boy and young man, the tanks and airplanes, the tactics and strategy of WWII is what animated me-- and the lack of these analogs in the teaching of black history is what made February the least engaging month in history class for me.
The thread: https://twitter.com/michaelharriot/s...76281040797699
I avoid Twitter. Can you summarize what you've linked, there?
I must admit I've been in tears for the World myself a few times over the last few weeks. BLM and covid hit me in the heart.
Werdly I've also felt more alive, have laughed more too.
But, 10 weeks so far of lockdown and I'd had enough at two weeks. Boris and Trump - neither seem to have a fucking clue.
There's actually quite quite a few heartwarming stories there - but yeah you gotta know where to click.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Is this an attempt to compare it to me saying you could always return to Canada if you felt the UK leaving the EU was so bad for you? I'll assume not, because the context is completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Even still, the guy has a point. I do appreciate that "why don't you leave" is an easy thing to present as racist, but it's not really, because I'd say exactly the same to a French person. If I went to live in France, and din't like a statue of Napoleon, idk if they even celebrate him but he was a cunt, if I have a problem with that, if I have a problem with French culture, and how they celebrate their history, coming back home to England is an option.
idk if this woman was actually born elsewhere, and if so if that guy knows it. That's kind of relevant. If he's just assuming she has dual nationality because she's black, and making those comments based on that assumption, that's pretty racist.
I mean from what I can gather she was born in the UK. I'm not even that bothered about birth, identity is enough. But identity isn't really a choice, it's a cultural process.
Given that she is British, it seems pretty racist to me, even if she does have dual nationality.
She was born in Norway to a British father, and raised in London. She has every right to consider herself "British".
If she'd moved from Norway five years ago, I'd say his comments are fair enough.
It's perfectly possible to love most of the things about a country, but not everything.
Standing up for human rights shouldn't be tied to a location.
No matter where you're from and where you are, the right to criticize what you feel is wrong should always be an option.
This specific incident is not about human rights, it's about statues. He's not saying "if you don't like racism, leave", he's saying "if you don't like how we celebrate our history, leave". It's racist because she's British. If she wasn't British, it's fair comment. That context is important.
I feel like you picked my one sentence that was off base, but ignored the other 2 which seem to be appropriate.
Well that's probably because I don't disagree. I mean sure she has the right to critisise, but if I'm in another country exercising my right to complain, and someone else says "well you can always go back to England", I'm going to consider that as a reasonable thing to say.
I'm not suggesting where she's from determines her right to complain. I'm arguing that this guy is racist because he was making these comments without knowing if she was actually British or not. If she came here five years ago or whatever, and this guy knows it, she's still got the right to complain, but he is also within his rights to point out she lives here by choice.
This is actually about him, not her.
I think the exclusionary sentiment is just another form of bigotry.
It's dismissing the argument with a non-sequitur.
A small meta observation. In a conversation the responses become far less polemic if people on top of saying where they disagree, in some form acknowledge where they do agree. Not aimed at anyone in particular, but everyone in general, especially myself. I realized I don't do it enough.
There's a Churchill statue under this. Everyone on Twitter is making the same joke.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaSx_e2X...jpg&name=large
Nah people just need to not care if certain parts of their posts go without comment. Poop does it all the time to me, he'll take one sentence form a wall that he can argue against, and leave all the juicy bits where I actually have a point. When he does that, I kinda take it as a win, not least because I ignore parts of his posts that I can't be bothered to respond to because I either agree or it's too hard to refute.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
The problem is, he appears to assume she has the option of living elsewhere purely because she's black. He may know enough about her to know she was born in Norway, without knowing it was to a British man, and that she grew up in London, in which case he's not being racist, just ignorant. But if the bigotry arises because of a racial assumption, well I don't see what other word there is other than racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
They're coming after Fawlty Towers now! I can't wait until they find out what all the hip hop artists rap about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns0uRr6aPQE
Yeah, basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by twitter
I've always read it as "black lives matter too", rather than "only black lives matter". Assuming that the people who support it mean the latter is just weird.
It's like you're responding to a different point.
Try again.Quote:
The reason people resist "black lives matter", the phrase, is because it's a strawman argument that implies that most people think they don't.
No I explicitly meant to refer to that. It never even crossed my mind that people who came up with the slogan meant only black lives mattered.
I see it to be a bona fide/mala fide situation, do you expect the people in question to be reasonable. "Black lives matter too" is perfectly reasonable, in fact should be the default for any reasonable person, whereas "only black lives matter" is simply inexcusable. I have no reason to think people behind BLM are not reasonable.
I think the driving force behind BLM is radical, it's not a battle for equality but supremacy. That's not to say the support for BLM is fighting for supremacy, to most it is about equality, this comes back to my earlier comments about the left (and right) being used as pawns. BLM are basically the radical feminists of race, and the bulk of their supporters are normal feminists.
But you have missed the point above. This isn't a case of "black lives matter too" vs "only black lives matter", the author of the quoted comment is making the point that the slogan "black lives matter" implies that most people don't already think black lives matter. All reasonable people are already in agreement that black lives matter. The slogan comes across as a message to white people in general rather than a message to the powers that be.
The problem for me is that it looks like they are fighting racism with racism. That isn't a winning strategy.
I disagree, ong. I see no evidence of BLM being a black supremacy movement, certainly not by the founders of BLM.
I'm curious what you are seeing from the "driving force" behind the BLM movement and organizers that indicates this.
Please share.
***
[sarcasm]
Besides, ong. If you're not an American, then your thoughts and criticisms are a waste of your time, by your own analysis.
You didn't even bother to come to America so we can tell you to go back where you came from before criticizing an American movement.
Look at you criticizing my culture without even being an American. How inconsiderate of you.
[/sarcasm]
See what I mean... your argument that someone can only criticize a country if they are a citizen from birth just doesn't hold up.
So long as your criticism is made in good faith, then discounting it based on nonsense isn't responding in good faith.
That author has a good imagination because that's not what it makes me think. It makes me think black people are tired of getting killed by the police over trivialities, and nothing happening to the offenders - as if their lives didn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Ong, society, the majority of the time on a local level, almost always on a national level, and most certainly on a global level treat black lives as less valuable than white lives. Either collectively, and therefore in aggregate individually, don't think black lives matter (as much as other lives), or there is some grand conspiracy with a handful of omnipotent racist Illuminati.
For it to be the former, it doesn't require clan hoods in the the closet of the aggregate person, it simply means that in aggregate, people are ok with the status quo. There are neo nazis and klan members, but that's not the indictment being made against the average person (and I purposely am not saying average white person, because the status quo is supported by people of all colors. It's all they know. They're fish with no concept of water.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Click the link, read the succession of tweets by the author, don't read any replies or retweets. I'm not on twitter either, but we're both big boys-- not gonna hold your hand here.
I have not said people can't criticise. You keep insisting this is what I'm saying, but it's not.Quote:
See what I mean... your argument that someone can only criticize a country if they are a citizen from birth just doesn't hold up.
People can criticise, and others can oppose such criticism. If you make public comments, you expose yourself to a public debate.
I have in the past before expressed bemusement at why someone who holds British culture in contempt would move to the UK. The reason of course is economics, which is fair enough, but it's somewhat lacking in principle. I wouldn't think I had any moral high ground to stand on when I'm supporting the economy by choice. I'd just keep my thoughts to myself and get on with my work. If I decided to publicly voice my opinion, I'd do so expecting a negative reaction from locals.
Quote:
So long as your criticism is made in good faith, then discounting it based on nonsense isn't responding in good faith.
The problem here is that "nonsense" is subjective. I don't think it's a nonsense to point out to an individual that he or she lives here by choice, so long as that is actually true. In the case of this example, that doesn't appear to be the case. This guy is wrong to dismiss her comments in the way he did, because he is assuming she is not British. You really want it to not be important what her nationality is, but unfortunately it is important. An extreme example is if I move to Germany today, and immediately start complaining about streets named after people linked to Nazis, that's gonna get on a few peoples' nerves. I mean I don't even speak German. They would rightly argue "what right has this guy got to turn up and start complaining", even though my complaints would actually have some moral merit.
Now if I'd worked in Germany for five years maybe, spoke the language, considered myself to be settled, maybe I'm better placed to start taking moral positions in public debate. But until then, I'm a guest. This is what I mean about national "identity" being a cultural process rather than a choice.
Maybe I'm being unfair and the "driving force" is actually the infiltration, but by driving force I mean the radicalism that we're seeing going on right now. I don't think what we're seeing is spontaneous, I think there is a level of organisation, and I'm questioning the motives of the organisers.Quote:
I'm curious what you are seeing from the "driving force" behind the BLM movement and organizers that indicates this.
One more point about this. I have also not said this is about place of birth, more about identity. I don't care where people were physically born. I've made it clear that the video we're talking about, that I completely accept that this woman is British, despite her not being born here. My point is that if she was a Norwegian who recently moved here, then someone refuting her complaints with "you can return home if you don't like it" is not a racist slur, it's not even unreasonable. You don't seem to like this because it places an emphasis on nationality, something you would prefer wasn't a relevant factor. But it is.Quote:
See what I mean... your argument that someone can only criticize a country if they are a citizen from birth just doesn't hold up.
What radicalism? To my knowledge the majority of protests have been peaceful throughout, and the rioting and looting has mostly ended for a while now. There's some indications that at least some of those had been organized by radical right groups and criminal gangs. I haven't seen any actions made by any of the peaceful protests that seem pre-planned or organized any more than someone saying "fucking hell, let's go protest".Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The radicalism has shifted from looting to defacing monuments. And yes, as I've acknowledged in this discussion previously, infiltration of these protests is coming from many different angles.
Well yeah but man, there's been protests in 550+ cities in the US, in how many have you heard there have been problems, 10?
I misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I didn't mean to insist, I just misunderstood.
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I mean nonsense in the sense of changing the subject to something that does not remotely respond to the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who do you think are these infiltrators?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why has their radical agenda not been found out by the FBI?
How are they communicating with each other, and managing to organize hundreds of people in each of a dozen or more cities without any known internet presence or phone records connecting those hundreds of people in each city?
Is it the same group responsible for the taking down of public statues / monuments in the US as in the UK? Around the world?
I have no issues with national pride. I'm proud to be an American. I'm proud to be a world citizen, to have seen other countries, and other cultures. Nationality has pros and cons.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If nationality is being used as an excuse to disregard knowledge based criticism made in good faith, then that's a con, 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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Who do you think are these infiltrators?
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.Quote:
Why has their radical agenda not been found out by the FBI?
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,Quote:
Is it the same group responsible for the taking down of public statues / monuments in the US as in the UK? Around the world?
Lots of different people have different agendas, some of them have absolutely nothing to do with BLM.
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.Quote:
If nationality is being used as an excuse to disregard knowledge based criticism made in good faith, then that's a con, IMO.
idk, there's been lots of problems, a great deal more than 10, but I have no idea if they originate from the same protests or different ones. And I'm arguing that the BLM movement has been infiltrated by radicals. They can't be everywhere, so I'd expect the majority of protests to be largely uneventful.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
It's all good, no need to be sorry. I just had to ram home the point that I don't think people do not have the right to be critical just because they are foreign. I just recognise nationality is an important factor in this discussion. People who are British do not choose to live here, and I extend that to people who have culturally settled here. But if you do choose to live here, it's not unreasonable for people to ask what keeps you here if you seem unhappy.Quote:
I misunderstood what you were saying. I apologize.
I didn't mean to insist, I just misunderstood.
10, 20, maybe 50, still a small minority. I wouldn't call that the driving force is what I'm saying. Also infiltrated sounds like they've somehow sneaked in and diverted the core of the moment, where I'd just say they've taken over parts of the protests, and at least partly specifically to delegitimize them. Just a matter of perspective, and small biases can completely turn around what's being perceived.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah that's fair comment, but we'll all capable of small biases. I obviously don't know what the fuck is going on, neither does anyone else. This year just gets crazier, I don't think I'd be that surprised if it turned out aliens were doing this.
Protests in Lebanon, their pound was 1500 to the dollar in Jan, it's now 5000 and they can barely afford to eat. As best I can tell, no looting yet, but they did set fire to the central bank.
Meanwhile, in my home town, twats are protesting about the name of a hotel.
Meanwhile other twats are going out to lend their support to the cause of preserving our national shame in the form of statues.
https://twitter.com/OliDugmore/statu...45768026787846
Racist lives matter.
https://twitter.com/TheProleStar/sta...84636709036032
The far right is out to pledge it's respect to the statue of Churchill today - by giving it the Nazi salute.
"We shall fight on the beaches, on the landing grounds, and...oh fuck it. Sieg heil!"
https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/statu...55011777794048
Say what Ong wants about the lefties, but these guys are giving stupid a bad name.
You do realise you're posting fake news here, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
These guys look like bored football fans. Let's not forget Euro 2020 should be happening, and all these twats should be in the pub watching us lose against the first decent team we face.Quote:
Say what Ong wants about the lefties, but these guys are giving stupid a bad name.
You're right! It was a different group of racists that they took the audio from.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://twitter.com/FIintIock/status...87708881481733
The Cenotaph is a source of shame? This is a war memorial dating back to WWI. It stands there today because the people demanded it in 1920. One hundred years later, and people are having to defend it from the baying mob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's a source of fucking shame.
Indeed. So someone somewhere faked that footage of people singing it in London.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Why?
"Pubs are closed, and I miss footie. What should we do?"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"Let's go to London and seig heil the Churchill statue."
"I'm in!"
Clickbait?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or do you think anyone needed real convicing the far right is full of racists?
Propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Stop talking shit. No-one has threatened the cenotaph. And they're not 'defending' it, they're using it as an excuse to go out and stir up shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why lie when the truth is already compelling enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Wait, do you think they are seig heiling? Putting one arm in the air does not make it a seig heil. Jesus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And how is it anything but abhorrent to being doing the Nazi salute in front of the cenotaph? Defending it - fuck off.
This is a very good question. Mull it over for a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You just posted a link showing me people singing God Save the Queen at the Cenotaph, suggesting they are twats protecting our national shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Tell that to these people.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...%C3%A4nger.jpg
Maybe they should have a disclaimer on their next rally "Any resemblance to a mass of nazis saluting the sieg heil is purely coincidental."
Sorry, but aren't they also against taking down any the statues of racists?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And you've yet to explain to me why they're really there. Who was threatening the cenotaph?
You tell me, you seem to have it all figured out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I can't believe we're at the point where putting an arm in the air triggers the left into "Nazi" claims.
I used to celebrate scoring a goal by putting one arm in the air and running. I think Shearer did too, he copied my celebration...
https://images.daznservices.com/di/l...79&quality=100
I can't believe we're at the point where the right tries to claim there's no difference between a man pointing a finger in the air and the men holding their palms up in the air.
Do you think everyone there is exactly the same? Do you think they are the same thoughts with different faces?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The Cenotaph has been defaced, has it not? And you're trying to say there's no threat to it? It offends people who want to shit on British culture.
Lol I love the tough guy at the end rolling up on the smallest cop he can find. What a fukcing loser.
https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status...83411087220736
I'm sorry but I think this is a massive overreach here, those people are not seig heiling. I've seen that a million times in pubs during England matches when people are singing "Ing-er-land". It's not a fucking seig heil, and anyone who thinks it is, they are either stupid or massively disingenuous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Clearly not. Some are more sympathetic to nazis than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Someone wrote BLM on the bottom. Hardly counts as defacing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Maybe Ingerland needs a new gesture that doesnt bear such a close resemblance to the seig heil. Maybe that's the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
ffs let's play semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Ok, try graffiti. Vandalism. Whatever you like. People see that as a threat. You might not, but some people do. At the very least it's an insult to those who consider it to be an important part of our history.
I like how when it's the left protesting for racial justice they're all pawns of the establishment, but when it's the right it's just a few bored football fans.