O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

I’m not claiming any great knowledge of genetics etc, GP...it’s you who’ve introduced that into the debate...my point is, or was, entirely in response to Tricky’s somewhat obsessive one.
It’s difficult to ignore the importance of colour in the retelling of certain stories because colour is essential and central to the story itself. ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Mississippi Burning’ would be obvious examples, as would be yours regarding Martin Luther King.
However having a few black centurions, Vikings, cowboys...whatever seems to me to be utterly harmless and something I don’t understand the fuss about...well actually I do, but it’s probably best unsaid on here right now.

P.S. Still don’t feel a couple of New York Jews to be any more believable as Vikings than a couple of black guys. It just doesn’t matter that much difference does it?

P.P.S. Back in the mid seventies I ‘cast’ a young West Indian kid as Jesus in a school Christmas production I’d written. One idiot apart no one batted an eyelid and that was forty five years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

I’m not claiming any great knowledge of genetics etc, GP...it’s you who’ve introduced that into the debate...my point is, or was, entirely in response to Tricky’s somewhat obsessive one.
It’s difficult to ignore the importance of colour in the retelling of certain stories because colour is essential and central to the story itself. ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Mississippi Burning’ would be obvious examples, as would be yours regarding Martin Luther King.
However having a few black centurions, Vikings, cowboys...whatever seems to me to be utterly harmless and something I don’t understand the fuss about...well actually I do, but it’s probably best unsaid on here right now.

---

Why is it obsessive, to want things portrayed as reality?

Perhaps we can have Donald Trump playing Hiroito then in a WW2 movie? After all, they were both leaders and followed by passionate followers.
That's the way you are portraying things.
My gripe was more about altering history to incorporate BAME, when it was obviously not true.
I to have seen parts played in performances of all sorts. I saw a very good performance of Queen Lear at Loughborough university.
I doubt very much Shakespear wrote it like that.
But considering men played the womens roles in his time, makes it very apt.
I'm glad you liked the ML King comparison. What about my Nelson Mandela one?

If you don't see the fuss in black cowboys or Vikings, then I despair considering you taught.
Blacks in the wild west were along way from being equal in the cowboy times. (brilliantly portrayed in Blazing Saddles)
As for US actor comparison. You forget that the Vikings roamed all over Europe and into Asia, raping and pillaging
The are as much entranched in our DNA as Anglo Saxon and Celts. The fact was though, they were white. (its ok, you can say it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

Do please explain the ‘point’ then Captain Patronising.

---

The 'point' as I see it was that GP was making an observation about two, or three, distinct(ish) subsets in a sample. Your own (and Swale's) response to that was to attempt to offer conflicting observations from your own samples. However, both your samples were biased (in sampling terms) by not having the same mix of subsets (in fact they had virtually none) which makes them incompatible with the original sample, which in turn means either you don't 'get' sampling, or you do and you don't 'get' the observation drawn by GP, or you do to both and you merely threw counter-anecdotes in to confuse the issue

Your own 'shop' anecdote in fact reinforces GP observation in repect of one of his subsets (I think GP says that elsewhere), so tick in the box for you there, but completely excludes other subsets so does nothing to refute GP, whilst your 'theatre v gig' anecdote (and I've noticed the same) offers further observation but again excludes other subsets so does nothing to refute GP

If that comes over as even more patronising, sorry its not meant to be

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

P.S. Still don’t feel a couple of New York Jews to be any more believable as Vikings than a couple of black guys. It just doesn’t matter that much difference does it?

P.P.S. Back in the mid seventies I ‘cast’ a young West Indian kid as Jesus in a school Christmas production I’d written. One idiot apart no one batted an eyelid and that was forty five years ago.

---

Well if we accept anecdotal evidence, Jesus was probably fairly dusky in appearance anyway, so good casting. Nor have I ever seen images of Jesus wearing a mask... again pointing to your good casting 😀

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone

Well if we accept anecdotal evidence, Jesus was probably fairly dusky in appearance anyway, so good casting. Nor have I ever seen images of Jesus wearing a mask... again pointing to your good casting ��

---

Indeed, you make a fair point, but look at the actors who’ve played him and the images you find of him of him and you see essentially and largely an image of a white European as portrayed by those from Robert Powell to William Dafoe. I heard no protests then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy_Faber

The 'point' as I see it was that GP was making an observation about two, or three, distinct(ish) subsets in a sample. Your own (and Swale's) response to that was to attempt to offer conflicting observations from your own samples. However, both your samples were biased (in sampling terms) by not having the same mix of subsets (in fact they had virtually none) which makes them incompatible with the original sample, which in turn means either you don't 'get' sampling, or you do and you don't 'get' the observation drawn by GP, or you do to both and you merely threw counter-anecdotes in to confuse the issue

Your own 'shop' anecdote in fact reinforces GP observation in repect of one of his subsets (I think GP says that elsewhere), so tick in the box for you there, but completely excludes other subsets so does nothing to refute GP, whilst your 'theatre v gig' anecdote (and I've noticed the same) offers further observation but again excludes other subsets so does nothing to refute GP

If that comes over as even more patronising, sorry its not meant to be

---

What comes across as patronising is your assertion that I don’t get the point, that you’ve had enough of Swale and that GP is ‘right’.
Why is that? Because, in the gospel according to Andy, you invariably agree with GP and disagree with Swale and myself.
That of course is fair enough, but it is also nothing more than your entirely subjective opinion which doesn’t make it ‘right’.
As I’ve already said, we actually all agree. Anecdotal evidence is of very limited value. GP kicked this off via some anecdote about his recent trip to Croydon...a place I have to admit I know little about...but his observations actually offered very little other than a snapshot to illustrate a possible (please note that word) agenda of his.
I countered that by offering another, equally valueless, ‘anecdotal snapshot’ describing a second scenario where a large group of almost universally white people appeared to be acting equally irresponsibly.
I could go further. Prior to Christmas I visited a club shop attached to a Premier League club where everyone was wearing a mask. Yesterday I visited the PP shop where I’d say I was one of only 10% who saw fit to wear a mask indoors.
Does this tell us something about the relative stupidity and irresponsibility of Derby County fans? Should it make observers jump to conclusions about Derby fans? No...it is just another anecdotal snapshot of the type that actually tells us very little.
So maybe it is you who ‘doesn’t get the point’ and continues to try and simply dismiss the views of others you don’t agree with while seeking to engage in an argument that doesn’t actually exist.

In the meantime could you please do your real moderator stuff and tidy up the ‘stickies’ which have got way out of hand again...imo...in so much as at least twenty of them really are no longer worthy of the ‘sticky’ acknowledgement...again imo. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramAnag

What comes across as patronising is your assertion that I don’t get the point, that you’ve had enough of Swale and that GP is ‘right’.
Why is that? Because, in the gospel according to Andy, you invariably agree with GP and disagree with Swale and myself.
That of course is fair enough, but it is also nothing more than your entirely subjective opinion which doesn’t make it ‘right’.
As I’ve already said, we actually all agree. Anecdotal evidence is of very limited value. GP kicked this off via some anecdote about his recent trip to Croydon...a place I have to admit I know little about...but his observations actually offered very little other than a snapshot to illustrate a possible (please note that word) agenda of his.
I countered that by offering another, equally valueless, ‘anecdotal snapshot’ describing a second scenario where a large group of almost universally white people appeared to be acting equally irresponsibly.
I could go further. Prior to Christmas I visited a club shop attached to a Premier League club where everyone was wearing a mask. Yesterday I visited the PP shop where I’d say I was one of only 10% who saw fit to wear a mask indoors.
Does this tell us something about the relative stupidity and irresponsibility of Derby County fans? Should it make observers jump to conclusions about Derby fans? No...it is just another anecdotal snapshot of the type that actually tells us very little.
So maybe it is you who ‘doesn’t get the point’ and continues to try and simply dismiss the views of others you don’t agree with while seeking to engage in an argument that doesn’t actually exist.

In the meantime could you please do your real moderator stuff and tidy up the ‘stickies’ which have got way out of hand again...imo...in so much as at least twenty of them really are no longer worthy of the ‘sticky’ acknowledgement...again imo. Thank you.

---

Ironically, Swale's earlier post moved things on a bit, not to the extent that we would necessarily agree on much, but to the extent that he did agree with the observation of mine that he has previously had so many bees in his bonnet, and been so fervently in denial about

In his words:

'yes that seems to be the reality'

and then follows with the obvious question - his words

'So what?'

Being in denial is not a good place to be, and now he's accepted that my observation has a basis in fact, we can either have a sensible discussion about it (which would be nice) or not (which is likely). Any efforts I've made over the past thousand or so posts on this subject have been to open his eyes not change his mind. Thats now done.

But sorry, using your words, your own (and Swale's) anecdotes weren't 'equally valueless' in comparison to GP's, they were IMO more valueless or at least of no value for comparison, for reasons I've explained. Likewise your club shop anecdote, it wasn't a snapshot it was two snapshots (at different points in time), GP's was only one.

Yes I'll sort the sticky thing when near a laptop, sorry I can't do it off a mobile device

I fear we run the risk of just turning this into another tedious personalised ‘scap’ of the type that Tricky and Swale have fallen into.
My point is that GP’s Croydon based anecdote is nothing more than a ‘snapshot’ - a momentary observation - upon which he attempts to build the foundations of an argument about the BAME community’s attitude towards the pandemic.
By citing the example of my local Saturday morning supermarket and the pre match Pride Park shop I am just attempting to restore balance. These were almost universally white environments where the attitude appeared equally irresponsible/complacent.
The point is...these are all nothing more than anecdotes/snapshots/momentary observations and we would be unwise to make judgements based upon such personal and transient perspectives.
We aren’t really disagreeing and I’m just not interested in indulging in some sort of contrived spat. As our lame duck PM once famously and wholly insincerely suggested, ‘we are all in this together’...regardless of colour or creed.

I told you before, on my Thai jaunt. I saw another angle, where middle easterners were the non wearing culprits.
So it depends where you are.
I'm off to Germany soon. That one could be interesting.