White lives matter - n/g | Page 11 | Vital Football

White lives matter - n/g

Tarian you said

Individuals object to being :
a) made to feel guilty

At that point I agreed with you wholeheartedly and I think it's the key. Foreget your qualifications for a moment and I'll avoid objecting to quite a bit else you said. Not only do people feel very uncomfortable feeling guilty it's not a very good way of trying to win them over. Sometimes that tactic makes me feel uncomfortable too.

The thing is another group of people are made to feel uncomfortable a lot more of the time than you and I and are made to feel even more uncomfortable when they speak up. You talk of the law as a solution but it's blunt and very limited and causes resentment when it's used, or even hinted at being used.

I am not aware of anyone suggesting we all feel individual guilt and responsibility for slavery but its history defined the way black people are seen and sometimes the way they interact with white people. I could write a very long post about how that history affected the way societies developed in our old colonies and how that has gone on to affect generations that followed. It would be quite tedious and you would be tapping before you had finished reading it.

I confess a personal stake in the matter, which makes it more real to me. You need to talk to some different people and try to imagine yourself in their place if you really want to understand what we are on about. I abhor tax funded freeloading and have never felt inclined to create disruption over this issue. Disruption for the sheer hell of it now and again yes but this subject is too serious for that.
 
ThreeSixes said:
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.
Click to expand...
More succinctly......

When people demand:
- restrictions on freedom (e.g. Free Speech v Political Correctness....)
- more money from taxpayers (supposedly the rich, but in reality most of us)
.....rather than casually suggest them....

Is "faith and guesswork" enough to justify high levels of assertiveness and activism ?
Or is it too much to ask that evidence might support loss of our freedom or money.
(Covid19 being a rare example of a plausible justification for both.)
 
Bloody hell Tarian, this is the problem with your 'debating' style. You post about 20 questions to each response. We end up with more questions than answers. Am I to expect another 20 on each point now?

Tarian said:
Individuals object to being :
a) made to feel guilty about something that a handful of people, NOT their ancestors, 10 generations ago did.
b) asked to "make up for"
....."gross mistakes" that "we" did not do.
Click to expand...

Of course its mistakes we did not commit ourselves - i said as much in my own post. It doesn't mean we don't need to strive to make amends if we want to achieve equality. We benefit from the lack of equality and have benefited from this for hundreds of years. It's the reason why there's so many blacks in poverty and part of the reason for such high crime rate within the black community.

All the time that us benefiting from inequality is the case, i personally feel uneasy. You clearly do not. That is the key difference. In fact, i would push one further, i suspect (cannot prove) that many people are happy for the status quo to continue as they deep down don't want to 'lose out' or their position of privilege to be removed. I suspect if a WLM/ALM supporter lived a few days in the life of a black man their opinion would change significantly.

FFS, what have people got to lose by accepting it's called BLM, rather than instead arguing for ALM?

Tarian said:
Of course black people should "get the equality they deserve" - but that should be equality of opportunity - not necessarily outcome
(the collective vs individuals)
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely. Have I said any differently?

Tarian said:
A) "their" ancestors" ??
How many people today have an ancestor relevant to this discussion ?
Click to expand...

I am speaking generally, not actual genetic ancestry - is that not clear? The generations of the past have made these mistakes, we have benefited from them ever since. The reason Great Britain (a tiny island in the grand scheme of things) is such a financial/influential force in the world is that past generations that built an empire etc. The lack of equality simply will not change if we just say, well we didn't do it, so it's not our problem. Is that the crux of your comeback here across the whole of your post?

"it wasn't us, so its not our problem?"

Tarian said:
Define "inequality".
Click to expand...
Really? Inequality in this context (i.e. racial inequality) is where people are treated differently based on their race or have fewer opportunities to succeed because of their race.
 
alphabet_king said:
You seem to misunderstand what an analogy is 666. An analogy is not an exact comparison that has to be exactly the same. That would not be an analogy. That would be
another example of something happening.
.
Click to expand...

I do understand what an analogy is, which is why I gave what I thought was a more accurate one.

I actually think Buddha's one was quite good, certainly better than "your house is on fire". I just don't think it was very accurate, and I said why
 
alphabet_king said:
Bloody hell Tarian, this is the problem with your 'debating' style. You post about 20 questions to each response. We end up with more questions than answers. Am I to expect another 20 on each point now?



Of course its mistakes we did not commit ourselves - i said as much in my own post. It doesn't mean we don't need to strive to make amends if we want to achieve equality. We benefit from the lack of equality and have benefited from this for hundreds of years. It's the reason why there's so many blacks in poverty and part of the reason for such high crime rate within the black community.

All the time that us benefiting from inequality is the case, i personally feel uneasy. You clearly do not. That is the key difference. In fact, i would push one further, i suspect (cannot prove) that many people are happy for the status quo to continue as they deep down don't want to 'lose out' or their position of privilege to be removed. I suspect if a WLM/ALM supporter lived a few days in the life of a black man their opinion would change significantly.

FFS, what have people got to lose by accepting it's called BLM, rather than instead arguing for ALM?



Yes absolutely. Have I said any differently?



I am speaking generally, not actual genetic ancestry - is that not clear? The generations of the past have made these mistakes, we have benefited from them ever since. The reason Great Britain (a tiny island in the grand scheme of things) is such a financial/influential force in the world is that past generations that built an empire etc. The lack of equality simply will not change if we just say, well we didn't do it, so it's not our problem. Is that the crux of your comeback here across the whole of your post?

"it wasn't us, so its not our problem?"


Really? Inequality in this context (i.e. racial inequality) is where people are treated differently based on their race or have fewer opportunities to succeed because of their race.
Click to expand...


You wont get any answers. He'll just dissect your post and then proceed to filibuster, ask inane questions and generally (but wilfully) miss your point. Finally, he'll ask you for proof.
 
Buddha said:
Ok, fair cop, I did suggest that you are a prime example of one of the more dangerous types of right-wing racist.

What I should have said is:

Although you may not actually be either right-wing or racist you give the impression, through the arguments you present, that if you are not either racist or right-wing, you are an apologist for those who are. This may not be quite so bad but it is still morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...
I suppose I should take the first bit in good spirit .....

....but the tail end twists the knife.

If I have made it clear - a few times now - that "I have never met any of these fabled "far right" racists" - how can I be an "apologist" ?

And as for those who I haven't met being cited as "racist"....
... how many times does the media provide any evidence to back up either "far right" or "racist" ?
Barely ever do we hear directly from these "bad" people to see for ourselves how "evil" they are.

Recent statue-defending was a case in point.
ONE clip showed a handful (3 or 4) thugs chasing retreating police.
They might have been young football fans - but no evidence was provided for them being members of any group - "far tight" or otherwise.

By contrast dozens (if not hundreds) of aggressive, vandalising thugs surrounded by BLM banners were described as "peaceful" demonstrators".
(e.g. outside Charing Cross Station)

Surely denying the visible evidence of clearly false media narratives is nearer to "morally reprehensible" ?
 
Buddha said:
Not really, Tarian, no.

Tell us about your first ever Gills game.
Click to expand...
Wrong thread....but....

Jan 69 FAC3
Gills v Peterborough.

Knowing from my footie mag that Gills wore blue......
I was thorough confused when the red team scored and people around me cheered.
For some reason the Home team wore its Away kit.
 
jogills said:
Tarian you said

Individuals object to being :
a) made to feel guilty

At that point I agreed with you wholeheartedly and I think it's the key. Foreget your qualifications for a moment and I'll avoid objecting to quite a bit else you said. Not only do people feel very uncomfortable feeling guilty it's not a very good way of trying to win them over. Sometimes that tactic makes me feel uncomfortable too.

The thing is another group of people are made to feel uncomfortable a lot more of the time than you and I and are made to feel even more uncomfortable when they speak up. You talk of the law as a solution but it's blunt and very limited and causes resentment when it's used, or even hinted at being used.

I am not aware of anyone suggesting we all feel individual guilt and responsibility for slavery but its history defined the way black people are seen and sometimes the way they interact with white people. I could write a very long post about how that history affected the way societies developed in our old colonies and how that has gone on to affect generations that followed. It would be quite tedious and you would be tapping before you had finished reading it.

I confess a personal stake in the matter, which makes it more real to me. You need to talk to some different people and try to imagine yourself in their place if you really want to understand what we are on about. I abhor tax funded freeloading and have never felt inclined to create disruption over this issue. Disruption for the sheer hell of it now and again yes but this subject is too serious for that.
Click to expand...
If only more posts took this tone.......(y)
 
GillsBluenose said:
I agree. If logic is the only adjudicator:
1. If you just want to be treated the same and not viewed as different from any other citizen due to the colour of your skin, is "Black lives matter" logically the best slogan?
Click to expand...
Why are you (and so many people) so caught up on what it's called though? Can you not see that this has simply derailed the whole discussion, and is doing nothing to address the actual point? People expressing 'ALM' all seem to claim they are fully in support of equality and the principles of what BLM are asking for (equality), yet since the BLM movement has started have done nothing but derail the discussion to split hairs over ALM vs BLM. Can you not see how people might think you really dont want movement for equality to succeed?

GillsBluenose said:
2. Is it logical to demolish or vandalise a whole set of statues that nobody has previously petitioned to have taken down even though some have been there for decades? (ditto, the banning and editing of classic TV programmes and films) - what logically has changed this month to merit that?
Click to expand...
A whole set? Lets take the rhetoric out of this please. Whole sets of statues were not demolished. As far as I am aware (i am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong), the only statue that was demolished by protesters was the one in Bristol. People had petitioned for years to get it taken down, and those petitions had been ignored. In hindsight, pretty much everyone now agrees it should have been taken down well before the protesters did so. Are you seriously disapointed that that this statue in particular was taken down?

I fully support saving it and putting it in a Black history museum and having as an example of something we can learn from, but simply cannot agree with leaving it up simply because 'it was put up in a time when that was deemed acceptable'. We are no longer in a time when it is acceptable to revere someone that was a slave trader, even if he did some philanthropy also. Just as it's not acceptable to leave up any statues of Jimmy Saville "for his charity work", ignoring the 'little matter of paedophilia'.

And yes it's right that now this has been highlighted, that a 'review of statues' is undertaken to review whether all statues are right to be displayed. This is probably something that should have been done some time ago. Thankfully the actions of the protesters has meant that actually this review is finally being done.

In reference to vandalism, of course a few more statues were vandalised rather than demolished. I only know of one other, but i am sure there was more. I acutally disagree with the Churchill vandalisms. This i think was just BLM protestors getting too over the top. For this they made a mistake here. That said, the statue protectors made their own mistakes, ask Nobby what he thinks of what the hero statue protectors did to the Keith Palmer statue.

GillsBluenose said:
3. Is it logical to paint someone who has been convicted of armed bank robbery, drug abuse and other crime, to be some sort of saint who could not possibly have been using a threatening manner and have needed some form of restraining when challenged? (That is not to condone the unnecessary force used afterwards).

If you are/were not there, you can only draw your "logic" from likelyhood and your existing attitude or in-built opinion.
Click to expand...

No one is painting George Floyd as a saint? What are you on about? People have fully accepted he was probably quite a bad character overall, no one's trying to say he's a saint, or any sort of martyr. People are saying the brutality he was unfortunate to receive is simply one example of what many black people receive all over the US, and in the UK also. That's all that's being said. The reason he has become so popular, and the reason it's caused so much 'trouble', is that its a rare moment that this brutality and systematic inequality has been caught quite so vividly on camera. It's a rare moment they are able to prove what has been said for years and years. It's created a movement of people who have experienced rough treatment by cops etc. or just general rough treatment by other factions of society. No one is saying Floyd was a saint at all. That is all in your head.
 
Last edited:
Tarian said:
I suppose I should take the first bit in good spirit .....

....but the tail end twists the knife.

If I have made it clear - a few times now - that "I have never met any of these fabled "far right" racists" - how can I be an "apologist" ?

And as for those who I haven't met being cited as "racist"....
... how many times does the media provide any evidence to back up either "far right" or "racist" ?
Barely ever do we hear directly from these "bad" people to see for ourselves how "evil" they are.

Recent statue-defending was a case in point.
ONE clip showed a handful (3 or 4) thugs chasing retreating police.
They might have been young football fans - but no evidence was provided for them being members of any group - "far tight" or otherwise.

By contrast dozens (if not hundreds) of aggressive, vandalising thugs surrounded by BLM banners were described as "peaceful" demonstrators".
(e.g. outside Charing Cross Station)

Surely denying the visible evidence of clearly false media narratives is nearer to "morally reprehensible" ?
Click to expand...


Since when did you have to have met someone to be an apologist for them?!

If you think that those 'football supporters' are anything other than right-wing you are deluded. Nobody else needs 'proof' because it is palpably obvious.

You are like a flat earther! I can't 'prove' you to be wrong because you'll have an answer to everything. But simply having an answer for everything doesn't make you right. All reasonable people consider the evidence and reject the notion that the earth is flat. Flat earthers maintain their position despite it's absurdity. Flat earthers counter all rationale that they encounter. And that's the strength of their (and your) position. It's obviously bollocks but nobody can completely prove it to be so.

Don't bother coming up with arguments against a flat earth, I wont be able to counter all of them. But I know a bloke who could. He doesn't really believe the earth is flat but he can adopt that position for sake of argument and whatever bit of science or logic or reason you might present, he'll have a counter argument to it.

You are just the same.
 
Last edited:
alphabet_king said:
A whole set? Lets take the rhetoric out of this please. Whole sets of statues were not demolished. As far as I am aware (i am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong), the only statue that was demolished by protesters was the one in Bristol. People had petitioned for years to get it taken down, and those petitions had been ignored. In hindsight, pretty much everyone now agrees it should have been taken down well before the protesters did so. Are you seriously disapointed that that this statue in particular was taken down?
Click to expand...

I made this exact point earlier in the thread, AK.
 
jogills said:
The thing is we don't tend to see that sort of encounter unless we witness it involving those we know..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree which is why I said I didn't know how Mike Wedderburn can state that whites have one experience whilst blacks have another
 
jogills said:
On the subject of George Floyd and his drugs conviction, which put him behind bars and changed his life, it's now under review along with hundreds of other cases.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rest-probe-police-us-drug-cases-a9577131.html

I don't know whether Floyd's case will be overturned but it looks certain that others will be. That's many lives blighted by...... call it whatever you want, it's wrong.
Click to expand...

That's a really interesting article. I implore people to read the whole of it.

Ultimately what it says that stands out to me is:

His first conviction for 10 months is potentially unsound due to the fact the only witness (an undercover cop) has been proven to be a liar and to frame people. So potentially that conviction may be wrong. None of this is proven yet, so it's all hypothetical there - lets wait and see.

There is then quotes of people saying after that first conviction his life changed. He out of prison with much fewer opportunities. They seem to be suggesting that unfortunately for him at this point he allowed this to define him, and he turned into what he had been accused of etc. i.e. they seem to be asking "Who is to know if he hadn't ended up in prison wrongfully the first time, would he have been involved in the next crime" etc. That again is tough to prove either way, but a fair argument to raise. I implore also anyone to watch a drama based on real life called 'When they See us'. It's an incredible documentary and will open many people's eyes. I am not saying that's definitely what happened here too, but its just a great mini-series to open your eyes.

Then though, importantly, it also goes on to say that actually since that 2nd stretch he managed to turn his life around, and was doing a lot of community work. He was preaching to youngsters about crime and violence.

Many of the 'ALM/WLM supporters' that i've seen discussing it on social media would have you believe that he was a real wrong'un (even I believed it and did say he was maybe a 'bad character' earlier in the thread). Many have used this to try to discredit any claims he was actually a subject of police brutality, and to discredit any sympathy shown to him. Yet the article has quotes from many people who said he had changed his life, and turned his life around.

Until the original conviction is proven, it's hypothetical. But interesting, anyway.
 
Tarian said:
Wrong thread....but....

Jan 69 FAC3
Gills v Peterborough.

Knowing from my footie mag that Gills wore blue......
I was thorough confused when the red team scored and people around me cheered.
For some reason the Home team wore its Away kit.
Click to expand...

In that case you're either an old gimmer or you're fast approaching gimmer status. That at least, is reassuring.

I had an image of you as some snotty nosed young Conservative. So glad to hear you're not young.

Post more Gills stuff, Tarian. People will be more interested in what you have to say...
 
One good piece of news on the TV today is that there is to be a ban on any of the sort of "choke holds" used by the US police in the Floyd case.

There must always have been a better and safer way of restraint. Even Tasers are better than that.
 
Tarian said:
Wrong thread....but....

Jan 69 FAC3
Gills v Peterborough.

Knowing from my footie mag that Gills wore blue......
I was thorough confused when the red team scored and people around me cheered.
For some reason the Home team wore its Away kit.
Click to expand...

What a cracking game to start with and a big crowd too.. I enjoyed that one.
 
ThreeSixes said:
Yeah, I agree which is why I said I didn't know how Mike Wedderburn can state that whites have one experience whilst blacks have another
Click to expand...

I'm interested to know what you mean by that. I have read a report of the statement he made, which is probably incomplete, and can't see anything that matches.
 
Tarian said:
Wrong thread....but....

Jan 69 FAC3
Gills v Peterborough.

Knowing from my footie mag that Gills wore blue......
I was thorough confused when the red team scored and people around me cheered.
For some reason the Home team wore its Away kit.
Click to expand...

Well fair enough, Tarian, this post suggests you're actually telling the truth. You've got some of the facts wrong but that would correlate with your age and the tricks that memory can play on us all. And goes to prove that facts aint everything.

You see, this is how to be fair and even handed in argument. Sometimes the facts and details can be wrong but the spirit or essence remains true .or correct

You might have got the year and the round wrong (we got knocked out in 2nd round against Leyton Orient in 68/69 season but we did play Peterboro in the 4th round the following season, so it was January 1970). But I'm not going to question your dates and details, it's clear to me that either:

a) you're telling the truth and just got things muddled
or
b) It was a deliberate and calculated ploy to get the details wrong; designed precisely to make people think you must be telling the truth, simply because it was so long ago and it's quite likely you might get details wrong. A kind of double bluff.

I reckon all in all it's gotta be a). Shirley not even you have could be so deranged you'd actually do b) ??!!


Congratulations, you've been a Gills fan longer than me. We have obviously shared many moments of despair and a few joyful ones too. How bizarre.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.