O/T Nelson's statue defaced, when will this all stop?

[ragingpup]

Would you tolerate such sweeping generalisations about, say, young black people, I wonder?

I have no idea about who funds BLM or their motives. I have even less interest.

I would love to see a society where skin colour had as much significance as shoe size when people interact, but I think that focusing on statues and the actions of people several centuries ago is not going to achieve that and will simply serve to trivialise the issue of prejudice and entrench views.

I would if they lacked credibility or came from a place of hostility as opposed to trying to understand or help resolve a situation. I don't personally see any hostility in saying that a section of society are more likely than others to be the ones who are anxious and agitated by something. And it certainly is trying to understand the situation. Feel free to disagree, but much evidence is on this board

You may wish for a world where skin colour is insignificant. It is to you. You have achieved that. You never had the problem of not having that as a problem in your life. But it isn't to people who have demonstrably less favourable prospects in their education and careers compared to white people. And you won't achieve your nirvana until that balance is reached I'm afraid.

I tend to agree on the statues/historical figures comment but refer you back to my point that such actions and arguments for all but the more obvious targets are very, very minority extremists or owners/councils that are responsible for statues that have a perfect right to review with their communities whether such figures are still relevant to the lives of the people within those communities.

[KerrAvon]

I would if they lacked credibility or came from a place of hostility as opposed to trying to understand or help resolve a situation. I don't personally see any hostility in saying that a section of society are more likely than others to be the ones who are anxious and agitated by something. And it certainly is trying to understand the situation. Feel free to disagree, but much evidence is on this board

You may wish for a world where skin colour is insignificant. It is to you. You have achieved that. You never had the problem of not having that as a problem in your life. But it isn't to people who have demonstrably less favourable prospects in their education and careers compared to white people. And you won't achieve your nirvana until that balance is reached I'm afraid.

I tend to agree on the statues/historical figures comment but refer you back to my point that such actions and arguments for all but the more obvious targets are very, very minority extremists or owners/councils that are responsible for statues that have a perfect right to review with their communities whether such figures are still relevant to the lives of the people within those communities.

So sweeping generalisations are ok provided the person making them believes them? Or does the principle only apply if it is a person from the left who is making them?

As sweeping generalisations appear to be in vogue, I will join in. I think there is plenty of evidence on this site and across the media in general that people of the left have a misplaced belief in their own moral superiority and an obsession with identity politics and a victim culture. And of course, it is the left who decides who is worthy of victim status, which is one of the reasons why Labour has got itself so tied in knots about anti-Semitism.

It’s not a good look to anyone outside the left bubble.

I appreciate that you will dismiss my observations. And then you will find some excuses (that horrid MSM no doubt) for why Labour can't win elections, ignoring the reality that it might just be that the electorate finds the sanctimonious and hypocritical attitudes of some of it's activists unpalatable.

Just saying.

[ragingpup]

So sweeping generalisations are ok provided the person making them believes them? Or does the principle only apply if it is a person from the left who is making them?

As sweeping generalisations appear to be in vogue, I will join in. I think there is plenty of evidence on this site and across the media in general that people of the left have a misplaced belief in their own moral superiority and an obsession with identity politics and a victim culture. And of course, it is the left who decides who is worthy of victim status, which is one of the reasons why Labour has got itself so tied in knots about anti-Semitism.

It’s not a good look to anyone outside the left bubble.

I appreciate that you will dismiss my observations. And then you will find some excuses (that horrid MSM no doubt) for why Labour can't win elections, ignoring the reality that it might just be that the electorate finds the sanctimonious and hypocritical attitudes of some of it's activists unpalatable.

Just saying.

I don't think that it is a sweeping generalisation to say that the demographic that are most oppositional to BLM aims and actively engage with countering the arguments are white over 50s. I think that this is backed up with everything we see about us, on here, social media, film footage of counter protests, polls. I ask again, are you saying that you disagree that this demographic is the one most oppositional? Please clarify.

"people of the left have a misplaced belief in their own moral superiority and an obsession with identity politics and a victim culture". I'm genuinely sadened to hear a professed former Labour voter write this. Hasn't the whole point of the left, and Labour party been to represent not just workers, but to strive for equality for all parts of society. Isn't it true that this has always been the case with the left? Even your own Tony Blair, whom won your vote, made substantial improvements to gay rights as well as addressing other social inequalities. Why do you think it was OK to argue for more equal rights then, to the extent that you actively voted for it, without it being suddenly seen as "virtue signalling", "moral superiority", "victim culture" and "identity politics"? Were you "virtue signalling" then? Were the gay people for whom it was illegal for them to marry their partners simply part of "victim culture"?

Back to my central point. In my experience, the hysterics on the left and right belong to the extremists: the minority of extremists on the left over state the levels of discrimination, see all white people as racists, want to pull down all symbolism of anything with associations of racism and use violence as a means of advancing their cause. Extremists on the right see no inequalities or barriers whatsoever, that any argument suggesting that there may be inequalities is conspiracy against white people with a view to making them a subordinate race, that the presence of BAME minorities in the UK is detrimental to the UK, that they are inferior, violent, less educated and demean our society.

In the middle, the majority of people recognise that we have done a lot to address basic inequalities, it has improved in many areas but sympathise with black people they know and work with when they hear of how they have experienced discrimination in the workplace, in job interviews and dealings with the police, and how this is backed up with unquestionable data that discrimination exists. This has become more focused in the workplace in recent months as a result of world events, but most of the real work is being done with real people in upper management, HR talking to their black workers, recognising the need to make adjustments within their own working protocol and making positive adjustments, without the shrill histrionics you read on here. As I said, the majority of people do want change and change is happening regardless of what you read on here. I hope it is in your profession as well but you do have to work with your bosses to take a good hard look at your selves and be positive. You say in your other post this morning that you do want change. Well make a positive change then. As my beloved former boss used to say "JFDI son" - just ****ing do it!