O/T:- Covid Trump

[BigFatPie]

Oh lardy , homophobic as usual. I wonder what you'd say if someone who'd served in the Navy walked into the works can**** Well. I suppose if it it got a laugh from the lads. As for the rest, absoluteley pathetic.

As I keep telling you, it’s not homophobic to suggest you might have had *** with your captain(who could have been a woman for all I know, it’s you who gets offended at the idea of a man, are you sure it’s me who’s being homophobic?)

Tut tut Pugwash, get yourself on a diversity course.

[BigFatPie]

I don't ever recall describing myself as a “fan” of Trump. In fact I have some recollection of writing a while back that I wasn't particularly a fan of Trump as a person. What IS true is that as someone with right-leaning views I inevitably agreed with the thrust of quite a few of his policies, particularly on the economic front. I still do, but it doesn’t mean I endorse everything he has ever said and done. I don’t even say that about Margaret Thatcher!



I'm sure you would agree, because those are value judgements made through your filter that everyone who voted for Trump or Brexit is a racist.

(Actually, I credit you with plenty enough intelligence to know that isn’t true, but I’m using an exaggerated form of your own simplistic narrative to parody that narrative. That's a technique often used by the left-wing comedian Stewart Lee, of whom I am a fan).



I don’t presume to know what was in the mind of each individual protestor but I’m sure both/any groups of protestors are entirely convinced of their cause to demonstrate and the injustice they believe they have suffered. The extent to which they have a legitimate case is a subjective judgement which boils all the way down to each individual’s personal experience, and even then will vary depending upon who is making that judgement and their own political bias.

The more important point is that public frustration and anger can become dangerous and subject to political exploitation regardless of whether it is judged to be well-founded or not. Any politician genuinely seeking a resolution to these societal problems needs to begin a dialogue with any sizeable group of protestors from the starting point that their view is heard, even if it is not entirely accepted. At least then you have a basis for discussion and progress. Otherwise, any group of people who feel their concerns are being marginalized or dismissed will only become more angry.

I think you can take a pretty good guess at the aims and objectives of a protest or insurrection or riot without the ability of looking into the minds of every participant. I also think that comparing the George Floyd protests with what we saw on Wednesday is a massive case of false equivalence.

I also think you know all of the above, but you’re too uncomfortable with that to admit it.

[Ayeayeskipper]

I bet you pulled yerself red raw watching the other night. Nearly as exciting as when the captain invited you to his quarters one wet, cold, lonely night. The only thing missing for you was a good old fashioned lynching of a black fella.

Still, maybe next time eh?

Getting back to this. So Swale ,do you think it's acceptable for someone to say I'd like to see "a good old fashioned lynching of a black fella"? I don't have to justify myself to anyone but not only have I many black friends, I also have black family members. I suppose in the current climate, a piece of sh1t like him can say what he wants.

[Ayeayeskipper]

As I keep telling you, it’s not homophobic to suggest you might have had *** with your captain(who could have been a woman for all I know, it’s you who gets offended at the idea of a man, are you sure it’s me who’s being homophobic?)

Tut tut Pugwash, get yourself on a diversity course.

You never told me Lardy , you used to try and justify yersen but

[jackal2]

I think you can take a pretty good guess at the aims and objectives of a protest or insurrection or riot without the ability of looking into the minds of every participant. I also think that comparing the George Floyd protests with what we saw on Wednesday is a massive case of false equivalence. I also think you know all of the above, but you’re too uncomfortable with that to admit it.

I notice you fall back on that 'false equivalence' argument quite often, even though that is in itself a subjective judgement. Who determines what is a 'genuine' equivalence or a 'false' equivalence? You by any chance, depending on whether it suits your rigid political ideology or not?

[Elite_Pie]

I notice you fall back on that 'false equivalence' argument quite often, even though that is in itself a subjective judgement. Who determines what is a 'genuine' equivalence or a 'false' equivalence? You by any chance, depending on whether it suits your rigid political ideology or not?

I suppose 'false equivalence' will always be down to interpretation. As a recent example, let's look at 'Was Donald Trump instrumental in causing the riots?'. Some say yes, some say no. So which one is genuine and which one is false?

Some topics are 50/50, but some (like this one) are clear cut.

Or is that just my rigid political ideology?

[BigFatPie]

I notice you fall back on that 'false equivalence' argument quite often, even though that is in itself a subjective judgement. Who determines what is a 'genuine' equivalence or a 'false' equivalence? You by any chance, depending on whether it suits your rigid political ideology or not?

Yes I use ‘false equivalence’ because apologists for the other day try and use ‘false equivalence’ to compare what happened the other day with the George Floyd protests. Those protests wouldn’t have happened if George Floyd hadn’t been murdered. What would have prevented what happened on Wednesday? People protesting against long term systemic discrimination isn’t the same as what happened the other day. You yourself have refused to even try and explain what they were protesting/rioting about, because there is no rational explanation. It’s got nowt to do with ‘subjective judgment’. What was going through this chap’s mind for example?

[jackal2]

I suppose 'false equivalence' will always be down to interpretation. As a recent example, let's look at 'Was Donald Trump instrumental in causing the riots?'. Some say yes, some say no. So which one is genuine and which one is false?

Some topics are 50/50, but some (like this one) are clear cut.

Or is that just my rigid political ideology?

Well my original post openly states that the riots last week were "triggered by the words and actions of Donald Trump", which is pretty unequivocal, but that is of course opinion and could be an example of rigid political ideology. It’s perhaps most surprising is that we might have the same one!

If you read what I actually wrote in my original post, rather than whatever BFP thinks I said or meant through his warped perspective, then the two points I'm making are not unreasonable (in my view):-

1. That Donald Trump and George Floyd have become the current 'representatives' of the grievances of two different groups in United States society, but those grievances actually long precede and will outlast both of them, so the long-term focus should be on the grievances rather than these two temporary symbols who are already fading into history (a thought incidentally that Donald Trump would probably hate because he always thinks it’s all about him!)

2. That irrespective of the degree to which a protesting group’s (i.e. any group’s) grievances are judged to be legitimate or not, if enough people believe them to be true then this can potentially become dangerous, and in order to avoid that outcome you have to hear out such concerns even if you don’t necessarily accept them. If you ignore or try to silence the view of any significant group of people in society rather than engage with them, then you only feed that resentment and isolation and increase its appeal to anyone who has a “beef” with their life.

If you disagree with my conclusions then fair enough, but I don’t see why I should have to put up with someone misrepresenting what I’ve written to suggest I really meant whatever preconception was in their brain before they even read my words … if they ever did.

[SwalePie]

Getting back to this. So Swale ,do you think it's acceptable for someone to say I'd like to see "a good old fashioned lynching of a black fella"?

No I don't.

[Elite_Pie]

Well my original post openly states that the riots last week were "triggered by the words and actions of Donald Trump", which is pretty unequivocal, but that is of course opinion and could be an example of rigid political ideology. It’s perhaps most surprising is that we might have the same one!

Yep, so we both agree on the Trump thing, which is why I described it as 'clear cut'. He invited a crowd of his most extreme supporters to a rally, whipped them up into a frenzy, then stood back and watched with glee. Except it went further than he expected, didn't get the result he expected, and came back to bite him on the arse big time. I agree that false equivalence is a principle that can and does happen, but some cases (like covid and holocaust deniers) belong in the land of lunatics.

And Donald Trump supporters.