alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
Just use the ignore button mate. I dont see any of vg gills posts and its much more pleasant.
White lives matter - n/g
- Thread starter wxgill
- Start date
The pledge
Vital Reserves Team
think we all have different views of who is pathetic on this board. Depends if u think someone is racist or if u think someone is weak and naive.
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
To be honest there is not much thinking going on outside of our chosen bubbles as with most social media lol.
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Perplexed society!
Who are the most divisive?
Statuetoppling/potential book burnering fascists
OR
White lives matters banner loving fascists
Who are the most divisive?
Statuetoppling/potential book burnering fascists
OR
White lives matters banner loving fascists
shotshy
Vital Champions League
I dunno.
All cut from the same cloth in my opinion.
Intolerance is intolerance, no matter which side it comes from.
Well done for all those links. (Seriously).
One should look at the processes not the outcomes.
Surely there has to be some sort of conspiracy between police forces scattered across that continent ?
Maybe there is.
But deaths by themselves are not evidence of "systemic racism".
" know already that black men are 2 1/2 times more likely to be killed by police than white men."
The context should not be - population as a whole - but engagements with the police.
Otherwise it might be like comparing experience of a snow storm between Floridians and North Dakotans.
As a proportion of shoot-outs, white suspects seem to be killed disproportionately.
But hey ... statistics can be viewed from differences viewpoints.
Maybe we can agree that a combo of gun culture and trigger-happy police is a problem in the US .... that we do not have in the UK.
"Third, there is profound racial disparity in the misdemeanor arrest rate for most—but not all—offense types.
More unexpectedly, perhaps, the variation in racial disparity across offense types has remained remarkably constant over the past thirty-seven years; the offenses marked by the greatest racial disparity in arrest rates in 1980 are more or less the same as those marked by greatest racial disparity today."
Given the publicity around "race", criminality and police response since at least the 1970s ......
...isn't it just possible that "culture" is the constant factor over the decades rather than "race" ?
If so, those authors should not be "surprised" if some crimes gravitate to particular cultures.
(Financial scandals, Ponzi schemes, etc.... "culture" or "race" ?)
If police patrolling get a call about a suspect in the area and the description includes skin colour, surely it would be a waste of time to stop irrelevant passers by ?
But that link was about car stops - which is more problematic.
Why were black owners asked more questions ? If so why ?
In some cities treatment was different.
(As pointed out elsewhere) body language and demeanour can lead to misunderstandings.
(White youngsters are just as capable of being surly and mouthy....)
But increasingly police have body cameras - alongside car cameras - so we get to see the "treatment".
Behaviour all round seems to have improved.
"Among those who were unarmed and appeared to show no objective threat to police, nearly two-thirds of the victims were Hispanic or Black."
The numbers unarmed were 15 black and 25 white (Hispanics would make up to the "2/3rd").
While shocking for the individuals and their families - these 40 deaths would have been in maybe 3 dozen cities - spread out over a continent.
Isn't the idea of some sort of race "conspiracy" a bit far fetched ?
Perhaps we can agree that more US Police need to learn:
a) to read situations better
b) how to de-escalate ?
Then TOTAL unarmed deaths should reduce. (All lives matter .... ??)
Back to:
"the variation in racial disparity across offense types has remained remarkably constant over the past thirty-seven years"
Or put another way
Different social groups are remarkably consistent in the types of crime committed by members of their social group.
To repeat:
How about ALL Police behave better when engaging with ALL members of the public ?
On "systematic racism".... correlation is not the same as causation.
One should look at the processes not the outcomes.
Surely there has to be some sort of conspiracy between police forces scattered across that continent ?
Maybe there is.
But deaths by themselves are not evidence of "systemic racism".
No. We do not:
" know already that black men are 2 1/2 times more likely to be killed by police than white men."
The context should not be - population as a whole - but engagements with the police.
Otherwise it might be like comparing experience of a snow storm between Floridians and North Dakotans.
As a proportion of shoot-outs, white suspects seem to be killed disproportionately.
But hey ... statistics can be viewed from differences viewpoints.
Maybe we can agree that a combo of gun culture and trigger-happy police is a problem in the US .... that we do not have in the UK.
How about adding the next sentences from that extract ?
"Third, there is profound racial disparity in the misdemeanor arrest rate for most—but not all—offense types.
More unexpectedly, perhaps, the variation in racial disparity across offense types has remained remarkably constant over the past thirty-seven years; the offenses marked by the greatest racial disparity in arrest rates in 1980 are more or less the same as those marked by greatest racial disparity today."
Given the publicity around "race", criminality and police response since at least the 1970s ......
...isn't it just possible that "culture" is the constant factor over the decades rather than "race" ?
If so, those authors should not be "surprised" if some crimes gravitate to particular cultures.
(Financial scandals, Ponzi schemes, etc.... "culture" or "race" ?)
Stopped in the street - or stopped in the car ?
If police patrolling get a call about a suspect in the area and the description includes skin colour, surely it would be a waste of time to stop irrelevant passers by ?
But that link was about car stops - which is more problematic.
Why were black owners asked more questions ? If so why ?
"is" ? or "was" ?
In some cities treatment was different.
(As pointed out elsewhere) body language and demeanour can lead to misunderstandings.
(White youngsters are just as capable of being surly and mouthy....)
But increasingly police have body cameras - alongside car cameras - so we get to see the "treatment".
Behaviour all round seems to have improved.
Sadly, the credibility of that article is undermined by failing to provide actual numbers in this sentence:>
"Among those who were unarmed and appeared to show no objective threat to police, nearly two-thirds of the victims were Hispanic or Black."
The numbers unarmed were 15 black and 25 white (Hispanics would make up to the "2/3rd").
While shocking for the individuals and their families - these 40 deaths would have been in maybe 3 dozen cities - spread out over a continent.
Isn't the idea of some sort of race "conspiracy" a bit far fetched ?
Perhaps we can agree that more US Police need to learn:
a) to read situations better
b) how to de-escalate ?
Then TOTAL unarmed deaths should reduce. (All lives matter .... ??)
If the data shows that violent crime is perpetrated more by one culture, surely it won't be surprising if that group gets higher sentences ?
Back to:
"the variation in racial disparity across offense types has remained remarkably constant over the past thirty-seven years"
Or put another way
Different social groups are remarkably consistent in the types of crime committed by members of their social group.
Maybe Kansas City Police do need better training.
To repeat:
How about ALL Police behave better when engaging with ALL members of the public ?
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Your right!
Buddha
Vital Football Hero
Speak for yourself there, jerry. I don't have a 'chosen bubble' and some of the stuff that gets written on here definitely gets me thinking. Even when it's utter ignorant bullshit it's still occasionally thought provoking and at least provides reaffirmation that there are bigoted people out there who will not listen to reason.
There is also evidence of more dangerous proponents of right-wing rhetoric, those who can argue cogently and manipulate language and statistics to make it appear that their viewpoint is based upon reason, when in reality it is based purely upon prejudice and fear. These posters make me think that I must engage because the alternative (just ignoring them) wont make them go away. It just means that anybody reading their shite and not properly thinking might get fooled. They mustn't be left unchallenged, their racist views must be shouted down. It might not make them think but it might encourage others to think for themselves.
I want to know where all of these statue-toppling book-burning fascists are, jerry. To date 'the mob' have pulled down one statue. It was a particular statue that should have already been pulled down and would have been had it not been for a lack of money and (perverse and ironically) because the Mayor is of Jamaican descent himself and was worried that if he had made it a priority it may have been counter productive. (Counter productive because racists would have used it as a reason not only to criticise him but to oppose other positions of power being occupied by members of the BAME communities).
So other than that one, there have been no violent mobs roaming the streets trying to pull down statues. Instead there has only been violent mobs roaming the streets claiming to be protecting statues but finding that there's nobody to protect said statues from and so instead getting pissed and abusive, urinating on memorials of their heroes and fighting with the police whom they claim to support and respect.
All the nonsense about statues coming down and tv shows being pulled, that hasn't come from the streets but from the media and the corporations. And they're not really bothered by the issue, all they care about is their image and their profit margins.
The people who support the BLM movement support it because they are anti-racist. If you are an anti-racist the chances are that you're anti-fascist too. It seems difficult to conceive how somebody could be both anti-racist and fascist since an essential core element of fascism is identifying a section of society as 'different' or as 'outsiders' and then scapegoating them for the problems in society. Anti-racists stand against that kind of discrimination and scapegoating. Anti-racists want a society where someone's race or skin colour bears no influence upon their life opportunities. The only section of society that anti-racists target are the racist elements.
If anti-racists are fascists simply for identifying racists as 'different' from the rest of us, and as the obstacle or problem blocking a more progressive society, then so be it. If demanding that racism be confined to the dustbin of history is fascist then we really have entered the realms of doublethink and there is no hope.
I don't believe that to be true and will maintain a noble position of staunch anti-fascist and committed anti-racist.
I'm a no fascist. I don't want to melt down statues or burn any books. But neither do I want statues of racists on our streets or fascist literature disseminated at large. Put the statues in museums and the books in libraries. Not celebrating and memorialising hate and oppression is not the same as destroying history and pretending it didn't happen. It's just not celebrating and memorialising it.
maybe a linguistic or semantics based victory can be declared by those who I oppose. But it is meaningless and hollow.
There you go, you've made me think a bit just now...!!
"unite all people of colour" .....
..... again missing out millions of people who are not "of colour".
This is exactly the sort of language that allows your critics to perceive you and your ilk as divisive and "racist".
"All non-white people will have experienced...."
What is your evidence for "all" ?
(Presumably when black Kensington lady two Sundays ago (LBC approx. 4:20pm) said she and her family had not experienced racism here, she was lying ?)
Again - the "narrative" that racism is around every corner - has got worse -
is experienced by "all" is another assertion.
This has only one objective.
Justification for your disruption of society - your "perpetual revolution" - destruction of what you call;
" instruments and tools of power, oppression and control".
When it suits, you say that "context" justifies "BLM".
The context is that US police have shot about 1,000 people every year.
(400+ white, 200+ black etc,etc)
The vast majority were in shoots outs. Unarmed deaths were around 40.
So any campaign should be looking at all 1,000 - not only the 200 or so - and certainly not based on one reckless, thoughtless police officer.
Hence ALL lives matter.
So in this context, you are damned right to suspect that I do "disagree with the statement Black Lives Matter"...because (if it still isn't clear).....
BLM is sectional, selective, partial, exclusive - when it need not be.
It is prioritising the 200 at the expense of the other nearly 800.
When for the sake of just one word - just one - we could have a campaign that ALL could support.
And of course, you join the critics of White Lives Matter - while supporting BLM
Only a twisted, mind could make sense of that semantic contortion.
It is true that I don't pretend to understand the nuances of revolutionary socialists - and the many different factions.
Different shades of collectivism are irrelevant if one supports freedom.
If your approach is the "opposite" of destruction, why is your language so often abusive, aggressive and threatening ?
If you had ever explained that your version of "anarchism" was merely a variant of "libertarian", we might get somewhere.
But you've never hinted at the libertarian theme; "do no harm to others".
Do you really want "freedom" for other people ?
"Equality" to most socialist / collectivists means equality of outcome.
You come across as wanting everyone to have identical values to you - no-one to be allowed to innovate or "profit" (unless approved by the collective)....
.... with threatening language for those who don't.
"Mutual aid and co-operation" is at the heart of free-market capitalism.
Yet your kind always focus on the few bad apples who break the "rules".
Why ?
I have a problem with inequality of opportunity - or put simply - favouritism.
So NO "quotas". NO "affirmative action". NO treating people as clone-pawns in someone's political game.
I have a problem with injustice in the form of harm by others.
But just because people make different, sometimes bad choices with bad outcomes is not "injustice".
Just because someone is slower, gets ill, a tree falls on them - that isn't "injustice".
And the idea that "racism" or "oppression" is a serious and widespread problem is false propaganda by those whose only intent is to disrupt society and so the lives of millions of decent, hard-working, law-abiding individuals.
Well. What a lot of innuendo and emotive claptrap.
Just typical of SJWs.
Anyone who can "argue cogently" is "right wing" - which is code for "almost beyond the pale".
Anyone who understands numbers - and can demonstrate their misuse, "manipulates statistics".
Anyone who exposes assertions and unattributed claims "manipulates language"
Even "reason" is suspect now - challenged by the emotive and unsubstantiated accusation of "prejudice and fear".
And when all else fails, anyone who dares to "argue cogently", use "language and statistics" accurately, or heaven help us - apply "reason" ...
... must have "racist views".
Haven't you realised ? "Racist" has become so over-used, few (outside the Twittersphere) take it seriously anymore !
And lastly.... outside the Twittersphere, people do think for themselves.
Not really.
You just don't seem to get that the so-called "anti-racists" are viewed as:
a) not truly "anti-racist" (e.g. BLM "good" vs WLM "bad")
b) the other side of the same authoritarian coin as true "fascists".
Two faces, One ideology.
Like self-styled "liberals" you insist on telling everyone else how to behave and what to think.
Only "politically correct group think" is to be allowed.
Words have their meaning changed - so as to identify "insiders" and shame "outsiders".
This all aligns with fascistic, authoritarian tendencies.
What "vile views" ?
If you mean the constant accusations of "racist" .... without a shred of evidence
(but as a means to bully people trying to make half-decent arguments).....
Or if you mean "vile" abuse such as "Tory c n u t s " or wishing ill of Mrs Thatcher or Brexit supporters....
I wholeheartedly agree that without such views "the board is a much more pleasant place to inhabit".
False alternatives - based on at least one un-evidenced presumption.
Buddha
Vital Football Hero
Nope, that's not what I said or what I meant. Lots of people with various differing political viewpoints can argue their case cogently. I was making the point that there are two different types of right wing racist - the uneducated and ignorant bigot being one type; the other being the rhetoric using cogent arguer, of which you are a prime example. You've twisted my words to suggest that anybody who can argue cogently is right wing. This is neither true nor what I said. Rather it is simply yet another example of you manipulating and twisting my words. It doesn't make you look clever, it exposes you as being underhand.
Again, that is neither true nor what I said. Statistics can be and are manipulated all the time. By all sides. On any debate. That's why we all know and appreciate the phrase, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".
I don't think you understand numbers any better than I do. But even if you do, numbers, facts and statistics aren't everything. Emotion, pain, suffering and imagination cannot be reduced down to numbers and statistics, as much as Gradgrinds like yourself would like them to be.
And here you are doing it a third time! That's not what I said. I wouldn't have said that because it isn't true. You don't expose assertions and unattributed claims, you fucking well make them. Three times so far, just in your last post. And yet you call me a hypocrite!
You just can't hep yourself, can you?! That's not what I said! Plenty of people with no racist views can do all of those things. But that doesn't preclude a racist from also being able to appear to be using language and statistics correctly and applying reason when what they are actually doing is deliberately muddying the waters to actively stifle debate. They do that because they don't want the the current status quo challenged or changed.
I don't even understand, if you're not a racist, why you would spend so much time analysing people's words and arguments against racism?! If your heart was in the right place and your intentions honourable, you wouldn't want to argue against a desire for all lives to matter. If you really did want all lives to matter you'd cede that 'Black Lives Matter', even if you didn't agree with the semantics. You might think that the slogan is wrong headed but because you actually believed that all lives matter, you wouldn't say it. You wouldn't say it because although you might know that technically you're correct, you'd realise that by saying it you were harming the very cause that might actually lead to all lives mattering. And if you really wanted all lives to matter, you wouldn't want to sabotage the possibility of that becoming a reality.
Haven't you realised ? "Racist" has become so over-used, few (outside the Twittersphere) take it seriously anymore !
Not really, no. I have realised that this is what your ilk are trying to achieve.
I don't use twitter and I do all my thinking myself, thanks. I do read quite a bit and I enjoy listening to lots of different opinions to my own. Then I think about what I've read and heard. Then I form opinions of my own.
I reckon that's pretty normal, quite common. I also think that others will have read our exchanges, and they will think about things and they will form their own opinions. My views are based on love for all mankind and a desire for peace, freedom and equality for all people. You can try to (mis)characterise me as something else but I've been writing shit on here for quite some time and I trust that none bar the fab four (we all know to whom I refer) would ever consider me to be hate-filled or motivated by nastiness.
I do wonder if the same can be said about how other posters consider the views of those arguing against the need for change in society, with regard to racial inequality and injustice?* Ultimately, if the only people who label me as hate-filled are those who oppose my anti-racism, I have no option but to conclude that it is they, and not I, who are inspired by hate.
*It would be interesting to know how many people are currently 'ignoring'my posts, and how many are 'ignoring' the fab four. That might give some indication of what people think, whether they think it is Buddha the anti-racist who spreads hate, or whether they think that it is others doing so.
I don't tell anybody what to think. I tell people what I think. I might try to convince or persuade people of why I think what I think but I never "insist on telling everyone else how to behave and what to think."
I have often argued against political correctness on this board. And I have explained why I am opposed to it. I completely agree with you about how words can have their meanings changed and how this aligns with - you say fascistic but I'd call them totalitarian - authoritarian tendencies.
But I completely reject your suggestion that I am advocating political correctness. I don't fight racism because of political correctness, I fight racism because I know (from my psychedelic experiences) that all living things are as one, and that all humans, irrespective of race or anything else, are part of one collective humanity. I honestly believe only once everybody realises that we are all the same but simultaneously all unique and very different, humanity will have taken a great step towards enlightenment and freedom.
All the time we continue wasting time arguing about bullshit the forces of evil and darkness (which, consciously or not, you are serving) will continue to have the upper hand. Out demons out! Out racists out!
Last edited:
Exxcellent post. I've resorted to the ignore button for the 3 out and out racists (and for one other with strange "arguments" and "stats"). Perhaps the same 4.
Do keep reading and contributing please. There are lots of good threads such as the "memory lane" one Chris Who has just posted.
ThreeSixes
Vital Football Hero
Stop keep asking for evidence all the time, you sound like an evolutionist! People have different opinions and beliefs, some based on facts and evidence, some based on faith and guesswork. We should all try and be more tolerant of each other, you don't have to be "right" all the time.
jogills
Vital Football Hero
Keep reading and posting. We'll be back to the football at some stage too.
jogills
Vital Football Hero
The thing is we don't tend to see that sort of encounter unless we witness it involving those we know. A lot of nonsense is spouted on this issue by both sides of the argument but it's hard to argue with the lived experience of people one trusts. Too many straightforward and reasonable black people describe these experiences and others as routine. I referenced Robbie Earle because I've never seen him express any odd, or extreme views and he usually speaks dispassionately.
There are a few people who are obviously prejudiced and unashamed to show it. Social pressure and ultimately the law can deal with them. Some of what we are talking about is unintentional and I would not call the people doing it racist. I'm not so very different from them and I think that we want the same things in the most general terms.
ARFUR CONNELL
Vital Reserves Team
For a day or two, I thought this board was becoming more reasonable & readable. Could I suggest that posters don't post after having a few drinks or smokes!!
shotshy
Vital Champions League
Buddha
Vital Football Hero
It was a response to Tarian. Hence it's length and tedium.
