O/T:- Mr George Floyd RIP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigFatPie

Driller I wasn’t talking about the SDP, I was talking about Civitas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitas_(think_tank)

I never said that BLM was ‘immune’ from criticism, I would just want any critique to come from a person with a history of campaigning against racism and inequality. If I find such an article, I’ll be happy to send you a link. This guy Cobley is a shill for a regressive organisation that refuses to disclose who funds them. Writing the whole BLM campaign off as a lefty/Marxist conspiracy is daft.

Personally, can’t take his criticism seriously, but if you can, fair enough. I just hope another campaign for racial equality and justice appears that you and he may approve of.

---

A shill! I still don't agree.

I think the best approach when processing new information is to read what's written and check whether it's factually correct, rather than pre-emptively veto opinions based on who is writing them. Even opinions written in bad faith can be useful as long as they are based on fact.

But it isn't clear to me that that article was written in
bad faith. The author is an ex Labour party member and activist who writes a blog called A Free Left blog. He is a prominent critic of identity politics but it's a big leap from that to presuming that he has 'no interest in equality' therefore should be ignored.

Maybe his interest, like mine, lies in giving poor people across the board more chances to fulfill their potential, without focusing on race.

If I quote similar views from somebody else would you be willing to engage in a discussion?

There's no conspiracy - BLM's aims are literally written on their websites for all to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dam617

Is he in the chair with Susannah?
Main news media?

---

Cummings is far more important that that, he's the man running the country.

He issued us with rules and failed to follow them himself. And he's not "a leftie". Is it sinking in yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

A shill! I still don't agree.

I think the best approach when processing new information is to read what's written and check whether it's factually correct, rather than pre-emptively veto opinions based on who is writing them. Even opinions written in bad faith can be useful as long as they are based on fact.

But it isn't clear to me that that article was written in
bad faith. The author is an ex Labour party member and activist who writes a blog called A Free Left blog. He is a prominent critic of identity politics but it's a big leap from that to presuming that he has 'no interest in equality' therefore should be ignored.

Maybe his interest, like mine, lies in giving poor people across the board more chances to fulfill their potential, without focusing on race.

If I quote similar views from somebody else would you be willing to engage in a discussion?

There's no conspiracy - BLM's aims are literally written on their websites for all to see.

---

Yeah, writing off an article or opinion because of its source is something that normally I wouldn’t do. But I will be sceptical when a person like Cobley writes about a racial justice campaign, as much as if Farage wrote it. (A not entirely invalid comparison, Cobley appears particularly upset that Farage lost his radio show last week). You are right about BLM’s aims and objectives, they are on their website, and I can see why some might find them alarming.

As I said in my previous post, I’m entirely open to reading further criticisms from people who let’s say appear to have more sympathy with racial injustice and other inequalities.

In the meantime, here’s a letter Marcus Rashford has written to MPs. I’ve got something in my eye...

Attachment 16040

Attachment 16041

I don’t know why they’re titchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigFatPie

Yeah, writing off an article or opinion because of its source is something that normally I wouldn’t do. But I will be sceptical when a person like Cobley writes about a racial justice campaign, as much as if Farage wrote it. (A not entirely invalid comparison, Cobley appears particularly upset that Farage lost his radio show last week). You are right about BLM’s aims and objectives, they are on their website, and I can see why some might find them alarming.

As I said in my previous post, I’m entirely open to reading further criticisms from people who let’s say appear to have more sympathy with racial injustice and other inequalities.

In the meantime, here’s a letter Marcus Rashford has written to MPs. I’ve got something in my eye...

Attachment 16040

Attachment 16041

I don’t know why they’re titchy.

---

I don't know BFP, youve already done it a couple of times on this thread (Trump video and this).

I understand you being sceptical of people's motives but something is either true or it isn't. The examples quoted in the article seem to be true, and I don't know why we can't discuss them.

I doubt the Telegraph's gotcha article on professor Ferguson came from pure altruistic concern for the lockdown laws, likewise the Guardian's work on Cummings breaking them, but they were both true and both useful.

You seem to be saying that if I present you with the same words in the same order but put there by a different person we can discuss them, but as it stands we can't. I find that strange to say the least.

The people who ostensibly have reputations as fighting racial injustice aren't necessarily the people furthering the cause of black people - it's subjective.

I'm sure the activist at the BLM meeting in Seattle who told all the white people present to either give 10$ on the spot to the nearest black person (as a way of repenting, or beginning to repent, for their original sin of being white) or go home would say they were fighting racism, but to me they were just worsening racial division and infantilising the black people present.

I'm not sure what point you're making with the Rashford letter.

I think the basic problem with identity politics as a long term solution is this.

Rounding the numbers down to the nearest million.... Say you've got 2 million black people in poverty with all of the inevitable problems that go with it.

Post a BLM inspired cultural revolution, rather than a political or economic revolution, you then have black people proportionally represented in boardrooms, in government etc. Lots of black football managers as well, because that's the most important issue of all apparently.
Again rounding the numbers down to the nearest million, you've still got 2 million black people in poverty with all of the inevitable problems that go with it.

I wouldn't have thought the millions of white people in poverty go to bed at night thinking "Well James Dyson has done alright for himself and my local MP is white, so everything is just fine because at least I have the opportunity to be like them someday."
Go around the poorest areas of predominantly white Nottingham and ask yourself if white people on boardrooms, white MPs and white football managers has worked for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cher1

Agree with all of that. Schools have been using a 'transgender toolkit' which has resulted in ****age boys being allowed in girls' loos at schools. A brave ****age girl started court action and the toolkit is being quietly dropped across the country now. Thank god.

There are many examples of sports people born male competing in women's sport. Rachel McKinnon (although I think Rachel now goes by the name Veronica Ivy after it got a bit awkward when Rachel tweeted that they hoped women would' die in a grease fire') Laurel Hubbard, Cece Telfer etc There are also trans women playing womens rugby. Can you imagine the physical danger faced by women playing rugby against a man?

Any perfectly reasonable questions to these athletes results in torrents of abuse. Sharron Davies can attest to that. So can I actually!

Karen White is the prisoner I was referring to. I'm all for treating everyone equally but that's not what is happening here, as you say. The Guardian for example, when discussing trans issues, will refer to women as 'cis' women, as TRAs get very angry about women being called women for some reason. I'd also suggest your daughter reads up on the Vancouver Rape Relief and Womens Shelter (they were defunded as they only care for...well...actual women and have had rats nailed to their door), Maya Forstater, and the judicial review into the Tavistock Clinic which was rather keen on giving young people puberty blockers.

Equality for one group mustn't come about at the expense of another (particularly another groups actual safety), otherwise it cant really be called equality can it.

---

Thanks, I'll do that....I'll pick me time though :)

yes, there's something very dubious about the vehemence and violent reactions of the 'campaigners', as if the group they might be infringing upon have never suffered abuse and forms of discrimination and exclusion themselves...
I wonder how men would react if there suddenly emerged some increased chance of a negative, abusive happening in their toilets, changing rooms etc...I doubt the issue would be left unaddressed for too long...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

I don't know BFP, youve already done it a couple of times on this thread (Trump video and this).

I understand you being sceptical of people's motives but something is either true or it isn't. The examples quoted in the article seem to be true, and I don't know why we can't discuss them.

I doubt the Telegraph's gotcha article on professor Ferguson came from pure altruistic concern for the lockdown laws, likewise the Guardian's work on Cummings breaking them, but they were both true and both useful.

You seem to be saying that if I present you with the same words in the same order but put there by a different person we can discuss them, but as it stands we can't. I find that strange to say the least.

The people who ostensibly have reputations as fighting racial injustice aren't necessarily the people furthering the cause of black people - it's subjective.

I'm sure the activist at the BLM meeting in Seattle who told all the white people present to either give 10$ on the spot to the nearest black person (as a way of repenting, or beginning to repent, for their original sin of being white) or go home would say they were fighting racism, but to me they were just worsening racial division and infantilising the black people present.

I'm not sure what point you're making with the Rashford letter.

---

I wasn’t trying to make any point with the Rashford letter, I thought it was worth sharing.

At the start of this exchange you stated ‘ . I actually think its very much on topic as the more I look into it the BLM seems to be a Trojan horse organisation designed to enact a kind of cultural revolution based around the same anti-enlightenment principles espoused by the trans activists in JKR's case. With the same cult-like ritual humiliation of anyone who dares to question it.’

As we’ve established, you’re not black. I’m not black. The bloke who wrote that article isn’t black. I’m guessing we’ve all done alright out the current system and we don’t have to worry about harassment from the police. You can’t blame the people who aren’t doing alright out of the current system and do get harassed or have relatives killed by the police from wanting radical change to those structures rather than the incremental change that you were alluding to.

When those aims are put down on paper in the form of a ‘manifesto’ it can look alarming to people who are doing ‘alright’. I know you’re a progressive sort of person, but I don’t think Cobley or the organisations he works for are. So no, I don’t think an in depth discussion of his article would be worthwhile because I don’t think ANY campaign for social justice, no matter how meek it’s aims would win his approval. The BLM movement is imo far from perfect, but I would hesitate to criticise it further because I don’t live the experience that those from a BAME background obviously do. I’m not qualified. Johnson has responded today with the announcement of yet another Commission. Not good enough.

As for the Ingraham video, it was very relevant to point out that she’s a Trump propagandist, she came to a conclusion on that speech which was ridiculous. What could Trump have been referring to that George Floyd would approve of, except for the jobless figures? When looking at information, we shouldn’t let the source influence us too much, but that doesn’t mean we should become credulous idiots, waiting to be manipulated by the next chancer that comes along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigFatPie

At the start of this exchange you stated ‘ . I actually think its very much on topic as the more I look into it the BLM seems to be a Trojan horse organisation designed to enact a kind of cultural revolution based around the same anti-enlightenment principles espoused by the trans activists in JKR's case. With the same cult-like ritual humiliation of anyone who dares to question it.’

As we’ve established, you’re not black. I’m not black. The bloke who wrote that article isn’t black. I’m guessing we’ve all done alright out the current system and we don’t have to worry about harassment from the police. You can’t blame the people who aren’t doing alright out of the current system and do get harassed or have relatives killed by the police from wanting radical change to those structures rather than the incremental change that you were alluding to.

When those aims are put down on paper in the form of a ‘manifesto’ it can look alarming to people who are doing ‘alright’. I know you’re a progressive sort of person, but I don’t think Cobley or the organisations he works for are. So no, I don’t think an in depth discussion of his article would be worthwhile because I don’t think ANY campaign for social justice, no matter how meek it’s aims would win his approval. The BLM movement is imo far from perfect, but I would hesitate to criticise it further because I don’t live the experience that those from a BAME background obviously do. I’m not qualified.

---

The question of policing is complicated. I'm in favour of strict law and order, and I think that growing up in a high-crime area is one of the biggest barriers to young people fulfilling their potential. I'm all for listening to black people but that should mean all black people and not only pre-approved activist types. Otherwise it's like having a Guardian columnist speak as a representative for all white people.

I don't blame anyone for wanting certain changes but I do have an opinion on those changes. London has a huge problem with gangs and dismantling the police would seem counter intuitive to say the least.

The changes BLM are talking about would affect me in a very significant way. Why would I suspend my critical faculties just because they tell me I should as I don't belong to the correct group? If anything that makes me doubt even more that I should suspend my critical faculties.

Out of curiosity BFP, what concrete action would you have liked Johnson to take today?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigFatPie

As for the Ingraham video, it was very relevant to point out that she’s a Trump propagandist, she came to a conclusion on that speech which was ridiculous. What could Trump have been referring to that George Floyd would approve of, except for the jobless figures? When looking at information, we shouldn’t let the source influence us too much, but that doesn’t mean we should become credulous idiots, waiting to be manipulated by the next chancer that comes along.

---

He probably was talking about that, but it wasn't as clear cut as it was reported. Anyway my comment was more about your attitude to the Fox Video - choosing to rebut the accusation by saying Fox are apologists for Trump (which I agree with by the way) rather than rebutting the fact of the matter - that you think he could only be talking about the economy. I think every now and again it pays to listen to opposing views, just in case.

I suppose a better example would've been when Dam posted about police brutality against white people and you said it was whataboutism. It could be whataboutism or could actually be useful context. If there are episodes of police brutality against whites that I don't know about doing the roundson the internet, maybe there are even more that I don't know about not doing the rounds on the internet. Maybe I'd better look at some data to see if my perception of what's happening is accurate.

How many people know about David Dorn? Googling his name along with "BBC", nothing comes up. This is pretty ***** up.

https://twitter.com/w_terrence/statu...60534179483648

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by upthemaggies

How many people know about David Dorn? Googling his name along with "BBC", nothing comes up. This is pretty ***** up.

https://twitter.com/w_terrence/statu...60534179483648

---

BBC briefly covered his death on the 3rd. t was the first Google result I got when I searched his name and BBC. How odd.

Link (if it works) here