O/T:- Deserving of the sack?

[navypie]

Seems there's a bit of a push back on the so Long-Bailey sacking?



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53187789

I've just bought a big bag of popcorn.

[BigFatPie]

Sacking, threatening, attacking or or legally/forcibly silencing people who express opinions is never going to make that opinion go away or make the world a safer or nicer place. In fact it gradually achieves the opposite effect. Many people develop or are attracted to extreme political or religious views precisely because they feel unheard or powerless within the mainstream discourse, and the more the parameters of that mainstream discourse become squeezed, the greater that feeling of alienation and anger becomes, and the more people begin feel it, which is a dangerous situation to ferment.

If we want to create a genuinely more liberal, tolerant, understanding and mentally healthier society we have to accept (and cope with the fact) that some people will say things we don't like, or even which we find abhorrent, but as long as those views can be expressed and a conversation can take place, those views can change.

In the words of Del & Rodney from Only Fools & Horses:

"I've never been so offended!"

"Really? Well come over here and let me have a try!"

Racist people feeling free to say racist things will reduce racism is an interesting hypothesis.

[EwarWooWar]

Racist people feeling free to say racist things will reduce racism is an interesting hypothesis.

Ah yes but please explain what is the definition of "racist" this week, as your lot keeps changing the definition to suit your agenda. You want to define and class people based on their race and state that is not racist, others say people should not be defined on their race and you state that is racist.

[BigFatPie]

Ah yes but please explain what is the definition of "racist" this week, as your lot keeps changing the definition to suit your agenda. You want to define and class people based on their race and state that is not racist, others say people should not be defined on their race and you state that is racist.

Who’s ‘your lot’?

I think you know perfectly well what’s racist and what isn’t and I don’t know why you’re pretending not to.

[Notsohumblepie]

Who’s ‘your lot’?

I think you know perfectly well what’s racist and what isn’t and I don’t know why you’re pretending not to.

That's the point, nobody does, because the parameters are being " pushed" on a daily basis, and the racism definition expands driven by the views of the last twitter warrior who decided to redefine it .

It's like "The Terror" without The Guillotine.

[jackal2]

Racist people feeling free to say racist things will reduce racism is an interesting hypothesis.

Whether it’s racism or any other extreme ideology, preventing extremists from expressing their views in public will not make them less extreme. Nor will it stop them recruiting and grooming further extremists. They will still pick out vulnerable targets and indoctrinate them in private, in person or online, where moderating voices cannot see, hear or intervene until the damage is irrevocable.

Extreme views will exist for as long as humans exist and certain individuals or groups of people feel disillusioned with their lot in life. Suppression does not make the problem go away. It forces the problem underground and ferments it, until it eventually re-surfaces as a much bigger and more uncontrollable beast somewhere down the line.

I wouldn’t enjoying listening to – for example – hate preachers or racial supremacists – but I’d rather have those extreme views out in the open where they can be identified, discussed and challenged, often successfully, rather than forced into dark corners and closed conversations where they cannot.

[EwarWooWar]

Whether it’s racism or any other extreme ideology, preventing extremists from expressing their views in public will not make them less extreme. Nor will it stop them recruiting and grooming further extremists. They will still pick out vulnerable targets and indoctrinate them in private, in person or online, where moderating voices cannot see, hear or intervene until the damage is irrevocable.

Extreme views will exist for as long as humans exist and certain individuals or groups of people feel disillusioned with their lot in life. Suppression does not make the problem go away. It forces the problem underground and ferments it, until it eventually re-surfaces as a much bigger and more uncontrollable beast somewhere down the line.

I wouldn’t enjoying listening to – for example – hate preachers or racial supremacists – but I’d rather have those extreme views out in the open where they can be identified, discussed and challenged, often successfully, rather than forced into dark corners and closed conversations where they cannot.

Quite a well thought out and reasoned post. In addition to it.

When you ban people because of disagreeable speak you do not silence them, you merely move the place they make that speech. You then have others who end up in that same location only hearing the views of the hate speakers, they will then move towards those more radical views as there is no one to counter them.

The real way to counter hate is with the truth.

[jackal2]

If the spelling had been any worse, we could all have been constipated for eternity.

[applepie]

Can you please explain the point then. To counter you analogy, would we allow those that raise money for Breast Cancer to get those that raise money for Throat Cancer fired from their jobs, banned from social media, or to have the police threaten them for not raising money for the acceptable cause?

But is very kind of you to state some aren't "necessarily racist", but you think most of them are don't you. Yet it is you that want to introduce race based laws, its you that judges people not as an individuals but as a measure of their attributes.

So can you answer the question; do all lives matter?

Of course all lives matter. That’s just stating the bleeding obvious (to quote someone, I can’t remember who). The point of BLM is that, particularly in the USA, it doesn’t appear to be true judging by actions of the police. Statistics on things like deaths in police custody back that up.

So it makes sense to point out that black lives matter; it’s not really necessary to point out that white lives matter. If only all lives were treated as of equal worth.

[magpie_mania]

The safest driving is found a mile either side of a terrible road accident.

You are absolutely right. Then it just gets bad again.

Everything seems to be pointing to the lockdown being finished. On BBC Breakfast this morning there was a guy defending raves. He was in Nottingham. The police should apparently ignore them, 99% go under the radar, they socially distance, take all litter home etc. 50 - 100 attending. At the same time I read that a wedding reception held outside would be limited to 6 people. Can't see why he was given a platform on TV to not only defend them, but encourage them!