comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 11 minutes ago
''Once again, someone with a different point of view gets eviscerated. There’s liberal freedom of speech for you.''
---------------------
This.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Free speech doesn't mean you are allowed to say what you want without being challenged. It means you can say what you want, but people can also say what they want back to you. So if your opinion is distasteful, a lot of people can challenge it back.
People who moan about 'liberal free speech', usually mean that they want to be able to say what they want and have nobody disagree with them. What they want is an echo chamber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is incorrect. The guy was called and prat and a racist for having a different viewpoint. That’s not challenging his opinion at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well its not incorrect. Freedom of speech allows people to call others racist and prats. Just as it allows people to denigrate any discussion by referring to people as communists, terrorist sympathisers etc when they disagree with them.
If you don't like it, perhaps you don't actually want freedom of speech. If you only want a higher quality of debate, then it isn't actually freedom of speech that is your issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The key word was liberal not the freedom of speech that you’re focusing on. Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint. He said nothing that justified being called a racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By grouping all liberals together you are just doing exactly the same though. Attempting to eviscerate a whole political viewpoint based on a post from one person. There's Sat Nav freedom of speech for you.
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
Russian
I totally get the point Sat Nav is trying to make, i just think it’s naive to think it would actually make any difference. I know Sat Nav means well and is coming from a good place but I also feel that he doesn’t quite get it if that’s what he thinks. But whatever, like he said, this has been debated plenty these past few days.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 24 seconds ago
But I honestly don’t think it would, you do and fair enough. I personally think it’s rather native to think that people who don’t get the BLM name are willing to change their mind with a slight name change. Also, the name Black Lives Matter Too (I understand this was just a suggestion) lacks the impact of just Black Lives Matter, it sounds like some middle class version that wants everyone to be nice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As was already mentioned in the thread, BLM have probably considered all of this and felt that it worthwhile in order to have more impact as you imply. I genuinely just didn’t want people to be put off the movement simply by the slogan.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
'Black lives matter too' would make it rhetorically harder for enemies of the movement's objectives to cynically misrepresent what the slogan means. To that extent, I think Sat Nav has a point. But the fundamental problem is the cynical denial of the realities of racism and the cynical misrepresentation of the struggle against it. I'm afraid that with every such concession the concerted efforts to undermine that struggle would just shift to another target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It absolutely would. There is something in until we get to the point of being properly able to educate about true root causes and start to deal with them, removing any possible targets not being a bad thing.
We’re a long way off the real reform needed for longer lasting proper change unfortunately.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 41 minutes ago
I'm not sure everyone who is pushing back against anti-racism expressions and movements - I'm sure many of them in good faith, and not considering themselves prejudiced people - fully understand what they are against.
When the confrontational protests happened in the States, black people were told they should protest more peacefully. But when Kaepernick took the knee, the political Right was outraged and he was unable to work in the NFL again. So it's not really about the manner of protest.
It's a defensive mechanism. With some people, I guess it's a reluctance to give up privilege. With radicalised, political racists that tends to be because those don't have very much to be proud of individually, and considering themselves to be racially superior gives them some sense of status. At the other end of the scale, are think there are those who just find it uncomfortable 'going there' and who, like a poster earlier in this thread, interpret appeals for equal treatment and critiques of systemic racism as an "implication that the vast majority of white people are racist", which really isn't the message that BLM is putting out (before it is filtered through the press and social media).
One other thing: there are millions of decent people with blind spots on this, but there is also a seam of bad faith arguments and disinformation out there poisoning the discussion we could be having as a society. Disinformation includes fake and manipulated, decontextualised stats that attempt to hide the reality of racial inequity in organisations and societies. A great example of a bad faith argument was the Twitter storm the other day where a left-wing Muslim woman posted a photo of herself in the park featuring three orange objects (including the lolly she was eating) and put three orange emojis in the tweet; in response, lots of people were claiming the three emojis were mocking the three people stabbed in Reading. The mental gymnastics to justify this included "oranges are a symbol used to foreshadow death in the Godfather films". But the photo was taken before the attacks... "Ah, but it was *posted* after the attacks!" But at the time the tweet was posted there weren't any details about the victims, or the motive, and she hasn't ever indicated support for terrorism before, and anyway how would she know to incorporate an obscure reference to death in the photo in advance? "SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING!" The point isn't that there are cranks who believe this stuff - there are conspiratorial idiots across the political spectrum. The point is, anyone interacting with that discussion could easily see the counter arguments and use their common sense, and hundreds selectively only assimilated the mad accusations and repeated them. And that's the kind of bad faith activity that enables someone who isn't watching closely to get the impression that anti-white racism is just as much a thing, and that flying a White Lives Matter banner over a football match is a good idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent post.
I meant to say the same about yours earlier, it'sonlyagame
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was making was of liberals who throw insults at people simply because they have a different viewpoint. Of course other groups will also do this but an extreme left or extreme right doing that is far less ironic rather than someone who is liberal.
We’re delving into too much depth I think. Ultimately the guy got called racist for saying that some people were fed up of hearing the BLM rhetoric and possibly implying that he is too. That doesn’t make him racist and I wanted to point that out.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 33 minutes ago
There will be some people who don’t have a strong opinion but when they encounter the name/slogan of BLM they might (rightly or wrongly) misinterpret that and take it slightly negatively and then not look into it in more depth.
Adding the ‘too’ (which is only one suggestion there might be better out there) completely negates any potential negative thoughts about the movement based purely on the slogan
Basing ones opinion purely on a slogan is silly but it’s a reality that a lot of people do
If changing the name stops some, just some people from misinterpreting the slogan and if changing the name invites some more people in, just some, then I think we would have some more people looking into the matter critically, reading what BLMT has to say and perhaps changing their behaviours towards people.
It is BLM’s choice as it is their movement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what RR pointed out before pretty much hit the nail on the head:
"When the confrontational protests happened in the States, black people were told they should protest more peacefully. But when Kaepernick took the knee, the political Right was outraged and he was unable to work in the NFL again. So it's not really about the manner of protest."
It doesn't really matter what the slogan is, there will be spin doctors putting a twist on it, finding an angle from which to attack it, and dogwhistlers sending that message out to anyone who might be receptive.
I really don't think many "middle-of-the-road" people will have initially looked at this message in the context of a bloke choking to death having had a boot on his neck for ten minutes, not in isolation, but in the broader setting of repeated unjustified killings, and fail to understand where the expression Black Lives Matter is coming from or think to themselves, "Well, that's a bit off."
Adding "too" at the end, imo, just waters it down. It sounds someone at the back of the queue saying "Don't forget about me."
The whole point here is to underline that they have every right to be considered in the same breath as anyone else, and not to be treated like third-class citizens. Discrimination is not just about a powerful group exercising that power in its own favor - it also very much relies on making sure that the groups to want to discriminate against actually feel inferior to others too. BLM is assertive, BLMtoo is meek.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 33 minutes ago
There will be some people who don’t have a strong opinion but when they encounter the name/slogan of BLM they might (rightly or wrongly) misinterpret that and take it slightly negatively and then not look into it in more depth.
Adding the ‘too’ (which is only one suggestion there might be better out there) completely negates any potential negative thoughts about the movement based purely on the slogan
Basing ones opinion purely on a slogan is silly but it’s a reality that a lot of people do
If changing the name stops some, just some people from misinterpreting the slogan and if changing the name invites some more people in, just some, then I think we would have some more people looking into the matter critically, reading what BLMT has to say and perhaps changing their behaviours towards people.
It is BLM’s choice as it is their movement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what RR pointed out before pretty much hit the nail on the head:
"When the confrontational protests happened in the States, black people were told they should protest more peacefully. But when Kaepernick took the knee, the political Right was outraged and he was unable to work in the NFL again. So it's not really about the manner of protest."
It doesn't really matter what the slogan is, there will be spin doctors putting a twist on it, finding an angle from which to attack it, and dogwhistlers sending that message out to anyone who might be receptive.
I really don't think many "middle-of-the-road" people will have initially looked at this message in the context of a bloke choking to death having had a boot on his neck for ten minutes, not in isolation, but in the broader setting of repeated unjustified killings, and fail to understand where the expression Black Lives Matter is coming from or think to themselves, "Well, that's a bit off."
Adding "too" at the end, imo, just waters it down. It sounds someone at the back of the queue saying "Don't forget about me."
The whole point here is to underline that they have every right to be considered in the same breath as anyone else, and not to be treated like third-class citizens. Discrimination is not just about a powerful group exercising that power in its own favor - it also very much relies on making sure that the groups to want to discriminate against actually feel inferior to others too. BLM is assertive, BLMtoo is meek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I get that some people think adding the too is meek and softens the impact. As I’ve said several times, I’m sure that BLM considered all of this before naming their movement the way that they wanted to. I’ve not implied that there will be hundreds of thousands or millions of people that would end up with a different opinion simply due to adding ‘too’, but I do think that there would be some. I’m not a slogan expert and whether it’s adding ‘too’ or something else that doesn’t potentially alienate the people whose opinion BLM are trying to change whilst at the same time isn’t weaker than BLM then maybe it should be considered.
Ultimately, like with political elections, it’s about winning the votes of people whom do not traditionally vote for your party that wins elections, not winning more support in areas that you already hold.
Again, they’ve probably considered all of this and decided to go the way they have, which is entirely their right.
https://www.facebook.com/100002506341502/posts/3024320004328181/?d=n
What a charmer.
These threads constantly remind me that people in this country don’t actually know they’re racist.
https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
comment by Kung Fu Cantona 🙏🏼 🇵🇸 (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
These threads constantly remind me that people in this country don’t actually know they’re racist.
https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was making was of liberals who throw insults at people simply because they have a different viewpoint. Of course other groups will also do this but an extreme left or extreme right doing that is far less ironic rather than someone who is liberal.
We’re delving into too much depth I think. Ultimately the guy got called racist for saying that some people were fed up of hearing the BLM rhetoric and possibly implying that he is too. That doesn’t make him racist and I wanted to point that out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's always something paradoxical about encounters between liberalism and illiberal entities. If liberalism is driven by tolerance of a plurality of views, how does it react to intolerance? This is a question most serious liberal thinkers have asked themselves, and come down on different sides. The unnuanced poles are both problematic: extreme tolerance can lead to a blind spot against bigotry (and some left wingers can be legitimately criticised for pretending that certain bigotries don't exist in certain minority communities; muscular liberalism fed into the neoconservative foreign policy tendency, which gave us the Iraq war, among other disastrous attempts to impose liberal democracy.
So sure, it is problematic and there can be ironies. And sometimes people who want to defend tolerance and equality shoot their mouths off and read too much into innocent things. By the same token, some people do hold views that are based on racist logic and, because they haven't thought about it that way, get upset when it is pointed out.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was making was of liberals who throw insults at people simply because they have a different viewpoint. Of course other groups will also do this but an extreme left or extreme right doing that is far less ironic rather than someone who is liberal.
We’re delving into too much depth I think. Ultimately the guy got called racist for saying that some people were fed up of hearing the BLM rhetoric and possibly implying that he is too. That doesn’t make him racist and I wanted to point that out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's always something paradoxical about encounters between liberalism and illiberal entities. If liberalism is driven by tolerance of a plurality of views, how does it react to intolerance? This is a question most serious liberal thinkers have asked themselves, and come down on different sides. The unnuanced poles are both problematic: extreme tolerance can lead to a blind spot against bigotry (and some left wingers can be legitimately criticised for pretending that certain bigotries don't exist in certain minority communities; muscular liberalism fed into the neoconservative foreign policy tendency, which gave us the Iraq war, among other disastrous attempts to impose liberal democracy.
So sure, it is problematic and there can be ironies. And sometimes people who want to defend tolerance and equality shoot their mouths off and read too much into innocent things. By the same token, some people do hold views that are based on racist logic and, because they haven't thought about it that way, get upset when it is pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree. And to offer my own opinion on the point you raise in your second paragraph. There are undoubtedly historical and current culturally ingrained preconceptions about race much as there are historic factors, racial inequality factors that contribute to disparity of income between the races for example.
The first point is lack of education and ultimately people being raised and/or hanging around closed-minded fools who still think, talk and act in a racist manner. I do think this is dissipating generation to generation so we’re on our way.
The second point I think is caused by a multitude of factors, historical racial inequality in terms of laws & opportunities is one of those factors but one of many. Culture, lack of individual responsibility, listening the wrong people, making less good choices and more bad choices; all of these factors (and more) lead to disparity. It’s a lot more of a social thing than a race thing (with regards to this second point).
Social media really isn’t helping, no. It can help but honestly I would delete it from existence if I could.
I actually feel that we were/are heading in the right direction already, there have been vast improvements over the last 30 years in all of these aspects; violent race based crime, prohibitive laws & opportunities against ethnic minorities, health for black people specifically has improved a lot, education, income mobility. So I do think that a lot of what we’re doing is already working, it’s just not finished working yet. We need to acknowledge the improvements as well as what needs to be improved for if we don’t, we will not learn what is already working and continue practising it.
A lot of measurements for success are done by looking at gaps rather than overall trends and I think that is misleading and detracting from what has been a vast improvement.
Obviously I’m not saying that protesting and fighting for further improvements shouldn’t happen, of course it should. But we need to also acknowledge the things that are working and that progress is being made.
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree. And to offer my own opinion on the point you raise in your second paragraph. There are undoubtedly historical and current culturally ingrained preconceptions about race much as there are historic factors, racial inequality factors that contribute to disparity of income between the races for example.
The first point is lack of education and ultimately people being raised and/or hanging around closed-minded fools who still think, talk and act in a racist manner. I do think this is dissipating generation to generation so we’re on our way.
The second point I think is caused by a multitude of factors, historical racial inequality in terms of laws & opportunities is one of those factors but one of many. Culture, lack of individual responsibility, listening the wrong people, making less good choices and more bad choices; all of these factors (and more) lead to disparity. It’s a lot more of a social thing than a race thing (with regards to this second point).
Social media really isn’t helping, no. It can help but honestly I would delete it from existence if I could.
I actually feel that we were/are heading in the right direction already, there have been vast improvements over the last 30 years in all of these aspects; violent race based crime, prohibitive laws & opportunities against ethnic minorities, health for black people specifically has improved a lot, education, income mobility. So I do think that a lot of what we’re doing is already working, it’s just not finished working yet. We need to acknowledge the improvements as well as what needs to be improved for if we don’t, we will not learn what is already working and continue practising it.
A lot of measurements for success are done by looking at gaps rather than overall trends and I think that is misleading and detracting from what has been a vast improvement.
Obviously I’m not saying that protesting and fighting for further improvements shouldn’t happen, of course it should. But we need to also acknowledge the things that are working and that progress is being made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good comments from both of you there. Social change is slow. I, as I suppose many here, grew up in a much more explicitly racist society than today's but, while I think that the progress made thus far ought to be recognised, I don't think it should make us complacent or blind us to the fact that there is still much more to be done.
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree. And to offer my own opinion on the point you raise in your second paragraph. There are undoubtedly historical and current culturally ingrained preconceptions about race much as there are historic factors, racial inequality factors that contribute to disparity of income between the races for example.
The first point is lack of education and ultimately people being raised and/or hanging around closed-minded fools who still think, talk and act in a racist manner. I do think this is dissipating generation to generation so we’re on our way.
The second point I think is caused by a multitude of factors, historical racial inequality in terms of laws & opportunities is one of those factors but one of many. Culture, lack of individual responsibility, listening the wrong people, making less good choices and more bad choices; all of these factors (and more) lead to disparity. It’s a lot more of a social thing than a race thing (with regards to this second point).
Social media really isn’t helping, no. It can help but honestly I would delete it from existence if I could.
I actually feel that we were/are heading in the right direction already, there have been vast improvements over the last 30 years in all of these aspects; violent race based crime, prohibitive laws & opportunities against ethnic minorities, health for black people specifically has improved a lot, education, income mobility. So I do think that a lot of what we’re doing is already working, it’s just not finished working yet. We need to acknowledge the improvements as well as what needs to be improved for if we don’t, we will not learn what is already working and continue practising it.
A lot of measurements for success are done by looking at gaps rather than overall trends and I think that is misleading and detracting from what has been a vast improvement.
Obviously I’m not saying that protesting and fighting for further improvements shouldn’t happen, of course it should. But we need to also acknowledge the things that are working and that progress is being made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good comments from both of you there. Social change is slow. I, as I suppose many here, grew up in a much more explicitly racist society than today's but, while I think that the progress made thus far ought to be recognised, I don't think it should make us complacent or blind us to the fact that there is still much more to be done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re not progressing though, we’re regressing back to the 70’s
Completely agree itsonlyagame
We’re not progressing though, we’re regressing back to the 70’s
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That kind of blanket assertion isn't helpful. A few days ago they reported a survey that showed the UK population is way more comfortable with interracial marriages than it was ten years ago, let alone 30 years ago. Today in my Twitter feed I saw an academic mentioning that immigration has dropped out of the top ten most important issues to British voters. As a society in many important ways we have advanced in fantastic ways. When I went to school casual racism (and homophobia, etc.) was normal among my classmates. My kids are shocked to hear those stories. When I was a kid in the 80s, I remember hundreds of people around me voicing explicit race hate towards black players. Racism in those days was mainstream.
We've made progress, and there have been backlashes against that progress. Right now, we're seeing an alarming rise in far-right activity and we're also seeing far right ideas and tactics moving into mainstream politics. It's terrifying and depressing, and we have to fight it tooth and nail. But we should also recognise the progress. Not least because that enables us to appeal to the general public and say: "That's not who we are as a nation. We are better than that."
Racism is mainstream today too.
And comfortable with somebody ELSE’S marriage?
I didn't realise random racists got an opinion on it. Same as gay marriage. Mind your own....
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 19 minutes ago
We’re not progressing though, we’re regressing back to the 70’s
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That kind of blanket assertion isn't helpful. A few days ago they reported a survey that showed the UK population is way more comfortable with interracial marriages than it was ten years ago, let alone 30 years ago. Today in my Twitter feed I saw an academic mentioning that immigration has dropped out of the top ten most important issues to British voters. As a society in many important ways we have advanced in fantastic ways. When I went to school casual racism (and homophobia, etc.) was normal among my classmates. My kids are shocked to hear those stories. When I was a kid in the 80s, I remember hundreds of people around me voicing explicit race hate towards black players. Racism in those days was mainstream.
We've made progress, and there have been backlashes against that progress. Right now, we're seeing an alarming rise in far-right activity and we're also seeing far right ideas and tactics moving into mainstream politics. It's terrifying and depressing, and we have to fight it tooth and nail. But we should also recognise the progress. Not least because that enables us to appeal to the general public and say: "That's not who we are as a nation. We are better than that."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there’s an alarming rise in both far right and far left ideologies making their way into politics which boils down to this extreme polarisation that we all agree is happening these days. If extreme views are popular then politics will follow and vice versa. And of course we have media stirring it all and sensationalising it all to levels that we have never seen before.
Sign in if you want to comment
Plane over Etihad
Page 16 of 26
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 11 minutes ago
''Once again, someone with a different point of view gets eviscerated. There’s liberal freedom of speech for you.''
---------------------
This.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Free speech doesn't mean you are allowed to say what you want without being challenged. It means you can say what you want, but people can also say what they want back to you. So if your opinion is distasteful, a lot of people can challenge it back.
People who moan about 'liberal free speech', usually mean that they want to be able to say what they want and have nobody disagree with them. What they want is an echo chamber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is incorrect. The guy was called and prat and a racist for having a different viewpoint. That’s not challenging his opinion at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well its not incorrect. Freedom of speech allows people to call others racist and prats. Just as it allows people to denigrate any discussion by referring to people as communists, terrorist sympathisers etc when they disagree with them.
If you don't like it, perhaps you don't actually want freedom of speech. If you only want a higher quality of debate, then it isn't actually freedom of speech that is your issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The key word was liberal not the freedom of speech that you’re focusing on. Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint. He said nothing that justified being called a racist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By grouping all liberals together you are just doing exactly the same though. Attempting to eviscerate a whole political viewpoint based on a post from one person. There's Sat Nav freedom of speech for you.
posted on 23/6/20
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
posted on 23/6/20
Russian
I totally get the point Sat Nav is trying to make, i just think it’s naive to think it would actually make any difference. I know Sat Nav means well and is coming from a good place but I also feel that he doesn’t quite get it if that’s what he thinks. But whatever, like he said, this has been debated plenty these past few days.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 24 seconds ago
But I honestly don’t think it would, you do and fair enough. I personally think it’s rather native to think that people who don’t get the BLM name are willing to change their mind with a slight name change. Also, the name Black Lives Matter Too (I understand this was just a suggestion) lacks the impact of just Black Lives Matter, it sounds like some middle class version that wants everyone to be nice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As was already mentioned in the thread, BLM have probably considered all of this and felt that it worthwhile in order to have more impact as you imply. I genuinely just didn’t want people to be put off the movement simply by the slogan.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
'Black lives matter too' would make it rhetorically harder for enemies of the movement's objectives to cynically misrepresent what the slogan means. To that extent, I think Sat Nav has a point. But the fundamental problem is the cynical denial of the realities of racism and the cynical misrepresentation of the struggle against it. I'm afraid that with every such concession the concerted efforts to undermine that struggle would just shift to another target.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It absolutely would. There is something in until we get to the point of being properly able to educate about true root causes and start to deal with them, removing any possible targets not being a bad thing.
We’re a long way off the real reform needed for longer lasting proper change unfortunately.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 41 minutes ago
I'm not sure everyone who is pushing back against anti-racism expressions and movements - I'm sure many of them in good faith, and not considering themselves prejudiced people - fully understand what they are against.
When the confrontational protests happened in the States, black people were told they should protest more peacefully. But when Kaepernick took the knee, the political Right was outraged and he was unable to work in the NFL again. So it's not really about the manner of protest.
It's a defensive mechanism. With some people, I guess it's a reluctance to give up privilege. With radicalised, political racists that tends to be because those don't have very much to be proud of individually, and considering themselves to be racially superior gives them some sense of status. At the other end of the scale, are think there are those who just find it uncomfortable 'going there' and who, like a poster earlier in this thread, interpret appeals for equal treatment and critiques of systemic racism as an "implication that the vast majority of white people are racist", which really isn't the message that BLM is putting out (before it is filtered through the press and social media).
One other thing: there are millions of decent people with blind spots on this, but there is also a seam of bad faith arguments and disinformation out there poisoning the discussion we could be having as a society. Disinformation includes fake and manipulated, decontextualised stats that attempt to hide the reality of racial inequity in organisations and societies. A great example of a bad faith argument was the Twitter storm the other day where a left-wing Muslim woman posted a photo of herself in the park featuring three orange objects (including the lolly she was eating) and put three orange emojis in the tweet; in response, lots of people were claiming the three emojis were mocking the three people stabbed in Reading. The mental gymnastics to justify this included "oranges are a symbol used to foreshadow death in the Godfather films". But the photo was taken before the attacks... "Ah, but it was *posted* after the attacks!" But at the time the tweet was posted there weren't any details about the victims, or the motive, and she hasn't ever indicated support for terrorism before, and anyway how would she know to incorporate an obscure reference to death in the photo in advance? "SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING!" The point isn't that there are cranks who believe this stuff - there are conspiratorial idiots across the political spectrum. The point is, anyone interacting with that discussion could easily see the counter arguments and use their common sense, and hundreds selectively only assimilated the mad accusations and repeated them. And that's the kind of bad faith activity that enables someone who isn't watching closely to get the impression that anti-white racism is just as much a thing, and that flying a White Lives Matter banner over a football match is a good idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Excellent post.
posted on 23/6/20
I meant to say the same about yours earlier, it'sonlyagame
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was making was of liberals who throw insults at people simply because they have a different viewpoint. Of course other groups will also do this but an extreme left or extreme right doing that is far less ironic rather than someone who is liberal.
We’re delving into too much depth I think. Ultimately the guy got called racist for saying that some people were fed up of hearing the BLM rhetoric and possibly implying that he is too. That doesn’t make him racist and I wanted to point that out.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 33 minutes ago
There will be some people who don’t have a strong opinion but when they encounter the name/slogan of BLM they might (rightly or wrongly) misinterpret that and take it slightly negatively and then not look into it in more depth.
Adding the ‘too’ (which is only one suggestion there might be better out there) completely negates any potential negative thoughts about the movement based purely on the slogan
Basing ones opinion purely on a slogan is silly but it’s a reality that a lot of people do
If changing the name stops some, just some people from misinterpreting the slogan and if changing the name invites some more people in, just some, then I think we would have some more people looking into the matter critically, reading what BLMT has to say and perhaps changing their behaviours towards people.
It is BLM’s choice as it is their movement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what RR pointed out before pretty much hit the nail on the head:
"When the confrontational protests happened in the States, black people were told they should protest more peacefully. But when Kaepernick took the knee, the political Right was outraged and he was unable to work in the NFL again. So it's not really about the manner of protest."
It doesn't really matter what the slogan is, there will be spin doctors putting a twist on it, finding an angle from which to attack it, and dogwhistlers sending that message out to anyone who might be receptive.
I really don't think many "middle-of-the-road" people will have initially looked at this message in the context of a bloke choking to death having had a boot on his neck for ten minutes, not in isolation, but in the broader setting of repeated unjustified killings, and fail to understand where the expression Black Lives Matter is coming from or think to themselves, "Well, that's a bit off."
Adding "too" at the end, imo, just waters it down. It sounds someone at the back of the queue saying "Don't forget about me."
The whole point here is to underline that they have every right to be considered in the same breath as anyone else, and not to be treated like third-class citizens. Discrimination is not just about a powerful group exercising that power in its own favor - it also very much relies on making sure that the groups to want to discriminate against actually feel inferior to others too. BLM is assertive, BLMtoo is meek.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 33 minutes ago
There will be some people who don’t have a strong opinion but when they encounter the name/slogan of BLM they might (rightly or wrongly) misinterpret that and take it slightly negatively and then not look into it in more depth.
Adding the ‘too’ (which is only one suggestion there might be better out there) completely negates any potential negative thoughts about the movement based purely on the slogan
Basing ones opinion purely on a slogan is silly but it’s a reality that a lot of people do
If changing the name stops some, just some people from misinterpreting the slogan and if changing the name invites some more people in, just some, then I think we would have some more people looking into the matter critically, reading what BLMT has to say and perhaps changing their behaviours towards people.
It is BLM’s choice as it is their movement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think what RR pointed out before pretty much hit the nail on the head:
"When the confrontational protests happened in the States, black people were told they should protest more peacefully. But when Kaepernick took the knee, the political Right was outraged and he was unable to work in the NFL again. So it's not really about the manner of protest."
It doesn't really matter what the slogan is, there will be spin doctors putting a twist on it, finding an angle from which to attack it, and dogwhistlers sending that message out to anyone who might be receptive.
I really don't think many "middle-of-the-road" people will have initially looked at this message in the context of a bloke choking to death having had a boot on his neck for ten minutes, not in isolation, but in the broader setting of repeated unjustified killings, and fail to understand where the expression Black Lives Matter is coming from or think to themselves, "Well, that's a bit off."
Adding "too" at the end, imo, just waters it down. It sounds someone at the back of the queue saying "Don't forget about me."
The whole point here is to underline that they have every right to be considered in the same breath as anyone else, and not to be treated like third-class citizens. Discrimination is not just about a powerful group exercising that power in its own favor - it also very much relies on making sure that the groups to want to discriminate against actually feel inferior to others too. BLM is assertive, BLMtoo is meek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I get that some people think adding the too is meek and softens the impact. As I’ve said several times, I’m sure that BLM considered all of this before naming their movement the way that they wanted to. I’ve not implied that there will be hundreds of thousands or millions of people that would end up with a different opinion simply due to adding ‘too’, but I do think that there would be some. I’m not a slogan expert and whether it’s adding ‘too’ or something else that doesn’t potentially alienate the people whose opinion BLM are trying to change whilst at the same time isn’t weaker than BLM then maybe it should be considered.
Ultimately, like with political elections, it’s about winning the votes of people whom do not traditionally vote for your party that wins elections, not winning more support in areas that you already hold.
Again, they’ve probably considered all of this and decided to go the way they have, which is entirely their right.
posted on 23/6/20
https://www.facebook.com/100002506341502/posts/3024320004328181/?d=n
What a charmer.
posted on 23/6/20
These threads constantly remind me that people in this country don’t actually know they’re racist.
https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Kung Fu Cantona 🙏🏼 🇵🇸 (U18082)
posted 1 minute ago
These threads constantly remind me that people in this country don’t actually know they’re racist.
https://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was making was of liberals who throw insults at people simply because they have a different viewpoint. Of course other groups will also do this but an extreme left or extreme right doing that is far less ironic rather than someone who is liberal.
We’re delving into too much depth I think. Ultimately the guy got called racist for saying that some people were fed up of hearing the BLM rhetoric and possibly implying that he is too. That doesn’t make him racist and I wanted to point that out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's always something paradoxical about encounters between liberalism and illiberal entities. If liberalism is driven by tolerance of a plurality of views, how does it react to intolerance? This is a question most serious liberal thinkers have asked themselves, and come down on different sides. The unnuanced poles are both problematic: extreme tolerance can lead to a blind spot against bigotry (and some left wingers can be legitimately criticised for pretending that certain bigotries don't exist in certain minority communities; muscular liberalism fed into the neoconservative foreign policy tendency, which gave us the Iraq war, among other disastrous attempts to impose liberal democracy.
So sure, it is problematic and there can be ironies. And sometimes people who want to defend tolerance and equality shoot their mouths off and read too much into innocent things. By the same token, some people do hold views that are based on racist logic and, because they haven't thought about it that way, get upset when it is pointed out.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yes I do want better debate but my point was at the modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christ, that's some generalisation. Have you dipped into right wing social media anytime lately? Have you seen how people on the authoritarian left talk about their ideological opponents?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on RR. I didn’t say all liberals, did I? I didn’t even say all modern liberals, did I? I said “ modern day liberals who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.”
So yes it’s a generalisation of modern day liberal who throw insults at people for having a different viewpoint.
What it is not is a generalisation of all liberals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say 'all liberals' either. But you have generalised, you're depicting a 'type'. If you were thinking that it's not a typical brand of liberal behaviour and no more characteristic of liberals than other political viewpoints, then what's even the point you were making?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point I was making was of liberals who throw insults at people simply because they have a different viewpoint. Of course other groups will also do this but an extreme left or extreme right doing that is far less ironic rather than someone who is liberal.
We’re delving into too much depth I think. Ultimately the guy got called racist for saying that some people were fed up of hearing the BLM rhetoric and possibly implying that he is too. That doesn’t make him racist and I wanted to point that out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's always something paradoxical about encounters between liberalism and illiberal entities. If liberalism is driven by tolerance of a plurality of views, how does it react to intolerance? This is a question most serious liberal thinkers have asked themselves, and come down on different sides. The unnuanced poles are both problematic: extreme tolerance can lead to a blind spot against bigotry (and some left wingers can be legitimately criticised for pretending that certain bigotries don't exist in certain minority communities; muscular liberalism fed into the neoconservative foreign policy tendency, which gave us the Iraq war, among other disastrous attempts to impose liberal democracy.
So sure, it is problematic and there can be ironies. And sometimes people who want to defend tolerance and equality shoot their mouths off and read too much into innocent things. By the same token, some people do hold views that are based on racist logic and, because they haven't thought about it that way, get upset when it is pointed out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
posted on 23/6/20
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree. And to offer my own opinion on the point you raise in your second paragraph. There are undoubtedly historical and current culturally ingrained preconceptions about race much as there are historic factors, racial inequality factors that contribute to disparity of income between the races for example.
The first point is lack of education and ultimately people being raised and/or hanging around closed-minded fools who still think, talk and act in a racist manner. I do think this is dissipating generation to generation so we’re on our way.
The second point I think is caused by a multitude of factors, historical racial inequality in terms of laws & opportunities is one of those factors but one of many. Culture, lack of individual responsibility, listening the wrong people, making less good choices and more bad choices; all of these factors (and more) lead to disparity. It’s a lot more of a social thing than a race thing (with regards to this second point).
Social media really isn’t helping, no. It can help but honestly I would delete it from existence if I could.
I actually feel that we were/are heading in the right direction already, there have been vast improvements over the last 30 years in all of these aspects; violent race based crime, prohibitive laws & opportunities against ethnic minorities, health for black people specifically has improved a lot, education, income mobility. So I do think that a lot of what we’re doing is already working, it’s just not finished working yet. We need to acknowledge the improvements as well as what needs to be improved for if we don’t, we will not learn what is already working and continue practising it.
A lot of measurements for success are done by looking at gaps rather than overall trends and I think that is misleading and detracting from what has been a vast improvement.
Obviously I’m not saying that protesting and fighting for further improvements shouldn’t happen, of course it should. But we need to also acknowledge the things that are working and that progress is being made.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree. And to offer my own opinion on the point you raise in your second paragraph. There are undoubtedly historical and current culturally ingrained preconceptions about race much as there are historic factors, racial inequality factors that contribute to disparity of income between the races for example.
The first point is lack of education and ultimately people being raised and/or hanging around closed-minded fools who still think, talk and act in a racist manner. I do think this is dissipating generation to generation so we’re on our way.
The second point I think is caused by a multitude of factors, historical racial inequality in terms of laws & opportunities is one of those factors but one of many. Culture, lack of individual responsibility, listening the wrong people, making less good choices and more bad choices; all of these factors (and more) lead to disparity. It’s a lot more of a social thing than a race thing (with regards to this second point).
Social media really isn’t helping, no. It can help but honestly I would delete it from existence if I could.
I actually feel that we were/are heading in the right direction already, there have been vast improvements over the last 30 years in all of these aspects; violent race based crime, prohibitive laws & opportunities against ethnic minorities, health for black people specifically has improved a lot, education, income mobility. So I do think that a lot of what we’re doing is already working, it’s just not finished working yet. We need to acknowledge the improvements as well as what needs to be improved for if we don’t, we will not learn what is already working and continue practising it.
A lot of measurements for success are done by looking at gaps rather than overall trends and I think that is misleading and detracting from what has been a vast improvement.
Obviously I’m not saying that protesting and fighting for further improvements shouldn’t happen, of course it should. But we need to also acknowledge the things that are working and that progress is being made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good comments from both of you there. Social change is slow. I, as I suppose many here, grew up in a much more explicitly racist society than today's but, while I think that the progress made thus far ought to be recognised, I don't think it should make us complacent or blind us to the fact that there is still much more to be done.
posted on 23/6/20
comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
As with many things, when taken to the extreme, almost everything falls apart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, Sat Nav. The trouble is, in our polarised state, it's quite hard to identify or at least get consensus around what is extreme and what's reasonable.
At a left-of-centre person, I think it's my job to ask myself "is that really bigotry, or are there other factors that put what they said in context?" And I'd like my counterparts on the moderate right to ask themselves "is it possible that long-term, culturally ingrained preconceptions about race actually do play a part in that idea that has just been labelled racist?"
Social media has made us all entrenched in our views and certain of our moral superiority in a way that isn't healthy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree. And to offer my own opinion on the point you raise in your second paragraph. There are undoubtedly historical and current culturally ingrained preconceptions about race much as there are historic factors, racial inequality factors that contribute to disparity of income between the races for example.
The first point is lack of education and ultimately people being raised and/or hanging around closed-minded fools who still think, talk and act in a racist manner. I do think this is dissipating generation to generation so we’re on our way.
The second point I think is caused by a multitude of factors, historical racial inequality in terms of laws & opportunities is one of those factors but one of many. Culture, lack of individual responsibility, listening the wrong people, making less good choices and more bad choices; all of these factors (and more) lead to disparity. It’s a lot more of a social thing than a race thing (with regards to this second point).
Social media really isn’t helping, no. It can help but honestly I would delete it from existence if I could.
I actually feel that we were/are heading in the right direction already, there have been vast improvements over the last 30 years in all of these aspects; violent race based crime, prohibitive laws & opportunities against ethnic minorities, health for black people specifically has improved a lot, education, income mobility. So I do think that a lot of what we’re doing is already working, it’s just not finished working yet. We need to acknowledge the improvements as well as what needs to be improved for if we don’t, we will not learn what is already working and continue practising it.
A lot of measurements for success are done by looking at gaps rather than overall trends and I think that is misleading and detracting from what has been a vast improvement.
Obviously I’m not saying that protesting and fighting for further improvements shouldn’t happen, of course it should. But we need to also acknowledge the things that are working and that progress is being made.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good comments from both of you there. Social change is slow. I, as I suppose many here, grew up in a much more explicitly racist society than today's but, while I think that the progress made thus far ought to be recognised, I don't think it should make us complacent or blind us to the fact that there is still much more to be done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We’re not progressing though, we’re regressing back to the 70’s
posted on 23/6/20
Completely agree itsonlyagame
posted on 23/6/20
We’re not progressing though, we’re regressing back to the 70’s
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That kind of blanket assertion isn't helpful. A few days ago they reported a survey that showed the UK population is way more comfortable with interracial marriages than it was ten years ago, let alone 30 years ago. Today in my Twitter feed I saw an academic mentioning that immigration has dropped out of the top ten most important issues to British voters. As a society in many important ways we have advanced in fantastic ways. When I went to school casual racism (and homophobia, etc.) was normal among my classmates. My kids are shocked to hear those stories. When I was a kid in the 80s, I remember hundreds of people around me voicing explicit race hate towards black players. Racism in those days was mainstream.
We've made progress, and there have been backlashes against that progress. Right now, we're seeing an alarming rise in far-right activity and we're also seeing far right ideas and tactics moving into mainstream politics. It's terrifying and depressing, and we have to fight it tooth and nail. But we should also recognise the progress. Not least because that enables us to appeal to the general public and say: "That's not who we are as a nation. We are better than that."
posted on 23/6/20
Racism is mainstream today too.
And comfortable with somebody ELSE’S marriage?
I didn't realise random racists got an opinion on it. Same as gay marriage. Mind your own....
posted on 23/6/20
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 19 minutes ago
We’re not progressing though, we’re regressing back to the 70’s
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That kind of blanket assertion isn't helpful. A few days ago they reported a survey that showed the UK population is way more comfortable with interracial marriages than it was ten years ago, let alone 30 years ago. Today in my Twitter feed I saw an academic mentioning that immigration has dropped out of the top ten most important issues to British voters. As a society in many important ways we have advanced in fantastic ways. When I went to school casual racism (and homophobia, etc.) was normal among my classmates. My kids are shocked to hear those stories. When I was a kid in the 80s, I remember hundreds of people around me voicing explicit race hate towards black players. Racism in those days was mainstream.
We've made progress, and there have been backlashes against that progress. Right now, we're seeing an alarming rise in far-right activity and we're also seeing far right ideas and tactics moving into mainstream politics. It's terrifying and depressing, and we have to fight it tooth and nail. But we should also recognise the progress. Not least because that enables us to appeal to the general public and say: "That's not who we are as a nation. We are better than that."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there’s an alarming rise in both far right and far left ideologies making their way into politics which boils down to this extreme polarisation that we all agree is happening these days. If extreme views are popular then politics will follow and vice versa. And of course we have media stirring it all and sensationalising it all to levels that we have never seen before.
Page 16 of 26
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21