Response to Sincilbanks re politics and racism | Page 3 | Vital Football

Response to Sincilbanks re politics and racism

Sincilbanks said:
Shall we pull out the thread where I eventually force you to acknowledge that violent protest is sometimes required because I use some historical events as examples? In that same thread you acknowledge that you didn't understand the nature of the Tianamen square protest eventually became violent...
Click to expand...

Well aware of it. The fight against racism is not Tianamen Square. We are talking a Western Democracy (UK) that has been making great strides without recourse to violent protest in recent years, not the end of the tether in a brutally oppressive dictatorship, with no regard for human rights.

Feel free to apply the full context of the debate that we held there if you want to reference things old chap ;). And yes I accepted that as a last resort and in exceptional circumstances violent protest can sometimes be understandable. So I'm being consistent in my stance that I am opposed to violent protest. Struggling to see the link with what we have been discussing here.
 
hulloutpost said:
Believe it or not there are people who don't share your world view on Churchill and may be offended. Regardless, the law will apply to all commemorative monuments and sentences can be expected to be applied fairly by the independent judiciary whether it's Churchill or Mandela. That's what is supposed to happen in a free democracy.
Click to expand...

Not going to labour over this, but a) I didn't mention Churchill (nor was I thinking of him/his statue, particularly), and b) the law might not be applied fairly at all (see Stop & Search).
 
hulloutpost said:
Well aware of it. The fight against racism is not Tianamen Square. We are talking a Western Democracy (UK) that has been making great strides without recourse to violent protest in recent years, not the end of the tether in a brutally oppressive dictatorship, with no regard for human rights.

Feel free to apply the full context of the debate that we held there if you want to reference things old chap ;). And yes I accepted that as a last resort and in exceptional circumstances violent protest can sometimes be understandable. So I'm being consistent in my stance that I am opposed to violent protest. Struggling to see the link with what we have been discussing here.
Click to expand...

Because one of us understands history, I assumed you were claiming it was you, therefore I provided evidence on this very site that you don't, in fact, understand history. Firstly because you didn't know that violent protest was a thing at Tianamen Square and secondly because you had to change your opinion about violent protest never being justified when presented events that happened in, you guessed it...history...
 
GoBC said:
Not going to labour over this, but a) I didn't mention Churchill (nor was I thinking of him/his statue, particularly), and b) the law might not be applied fairly at all (see Stop & Search).
Click to expand...
a) Fair enough I got you mixed up with another contributor where the conversation had been in the context of Churchill as an example mentioned earlier; so it was simply an extension of that on my part. Your clarification is noted.
b) That is why we have an independent judiciary. The impression in recent years is that said judiciary are very liberal*, so I shouldn't worry about it too much from your perspective.

*This is my personal view, others may disagree. I can't be arsed to go off on a tangent about the severity of sentencing in different countries at this point.
 
Last edited:
Sincilbanks said:
Because one of us understands history, I assumed you were claiming it was you, therefore I provided evidence on this very site that you don't, in fact, understand history. Firstly because you didn't know that violent protest was a thing at Tianamen Square and secondly because you had to change your opinion about violent protest never being justified when presented events that happened in, you guessed it...history...
Click to expand...
You got me, I don't know every historical incident that ever occurred in the world in fine detail. Therefore logically it must follow that I am not entitled to an opinion on racism in the UK. I'll go hang my head in shame.....or perhaps alternatively I'll just settle for having a different opinion.

Just out of interest seeing as how I am white and privileged and therefore cannot "tell them how to behave" as you put it so politely; if you are white yourself (and therefore also privileged by default) by what higher moral authority are you qualified to "tell them" that violent protest is an acceptable way to behave?
 
hulloutpost said:
You got me, I don't know every historical incident that ever occurred in the world in fine detail. Therefore logically it must follow that I am not entitled to an opinion on racism in the UK. I'll go hang my head in shame.....or perhaps alternatively I'll just settle for having a different opinion.

Just out of interest seeing as how I am white and privileged and therefore cannot "tell them how to behave" as you put it so politely; if you are white yourself (and therefore also privileged by default) by what higher moral authority are you qualified to "tell them" that violent protest is an acceptable way to behave?
Click to expand...

I'm not telling them anything about what they need to do to gain equality. I'm letting them decide how to best go about it to achieve their ends...
 
Ah, I didn't realise; when I say I'm against violent protest that's telling people what to do and when you say you approve of violent protest that's letting people decide. I see how it works now.

Although I must confess that I am still puzzled where the many members of the black community fit in, who are appalled by the violence and see it as counter productive. Using your methodology as to letting 'them' decide, who do you think is right and wrong there? After all they can't both be right.

You will have to excuse me as I am also still a little confused about your position on violence per se after your clarification. We've seen some targeted violent protest (police, statues etc.) but we've also seen people assaulted and businesses damaged randomly. Do you personally approve or disapprove of those random attacks? I have made my position clear, I disapprove.
 
hulloutpost said:
Ah, I didn't realise; when I say I'm against violent protest that's telling people what to do and when you say you approve of violent protest that's letting people decide. I see how it works now.

Although I must confess that I am still puzzled where the many members of the black community fit in, who are appalled by the violence and see it as counter productive. Using your methodology as to letting 'them' decide, who do you think is right and wrong there? After all they can't both be right.

You will have to excuse me as I am also still a little confused about your position on violence per se after your clarification. We've seen some targeted violent protest (police, statues etc.) but we've also seen people assaulted and businesses damaged randomly. Do you personally approve or disapprove of those random attacks? I have made my position clear, I disapprove.
Click to expand...

I approve of violent protest full stop, in the pursuit of the BLM movement, I think that's clear?

We've discussed this before and it's quite clear you approve of violent protest (which includes the damaging of property and the injuring of members not involved in the protest) in certain circumstances (I don't think anyone is objecting to Ceacescu being dragged off and beaten during their uprising? Or members of the Tianemen square massacre smashing buildings to try and get away from the troops gunning them down?)

I'm not sure why you think members of the black community would be any less divided about achieving the aims of the BLM movement than any other large community population?

Those members of the black community who "disapprove" are also telling those protesting how to protest, aren't they? But then that has always been the case historically, contrast Malcolm X and Martin Luther King for instance. Martin Luther King spent a great deal of time telling people of colour how to protest peacefully (a bit like yourself in fact) but at least he did it with the full experience of what being a person of colour in the US at the time meant, unlike either you or me. My experience of talking to people of colour is that they are extremely wary about taking advice from those who haven't experienced their particular struggles.

So the real difference between you and me is on this issue really. I believe people of colour in this country and particularly the US have the right, given the oppression and racism they encounter on a daily basis (and especially in the US given the rate at which they are remorselessly executed on the streets by the police) to violent protest. I believe history points out that no progress will be made without violent protest. So in a straight choice between Malcolm X and MLK I believe Malcolm X has the right approach, I think that's clear?

I suspect you believe that sufficient progress in the UK has been made (because people of colour "have never had it so good" in this country to paraphrase) to justify violent protest. I'm not sure I really believe that you believe that about the US, but no matter...

If I am correct in your belief, then there really isn't any point in discussing it further, since our difference of opinion revolves around "how much progress" constitutes enough to not justify violent protest, and that really isn't an argument either of us are going to convince the other of. We probably can't agree on how much "actual" progress has been made in the first place...
 
Sincilbanks said:
I approve of violent protest full stop, in the pursuit of the BLM movement, I think that's clear?

We've discussed this before and it's quite clear you approve of violent protest (which includes the damaging of property and the injuring of members not involved in the protest) in certain circumstances (I don't think anyone is objecting to Ceacescu being dragged off and beaten during their uprising? Or members of the Tianemen square massacre smashing buildings to try and get away from the troops gunning them down?)

I'm not sure why you think members of the black community would be any less divided about achieving the aims of the BLM movement than any other large community population?

Those members of the black community who "disapprove" are also telling those protesting how to protest, aren't they? But then that has always been the case historically, contrast Malcolm X and Martin Luther King for instance. Martin Luther King spent a great deal of time telling people of colour how to protest peacefully (a bit like yourself in fact) but at least he did it with the full experience of what being a person of colour in the US at the time meant, unlike either you or me. My experience of talking to people of colour is that they are extremely wary about taking advice from those who haven't experienced their particular struggles.

So the real difference between you and me is on this issue really. I believe people of colour in this country and particularly the US have the right, given the oppression and racism they encounter on a daily basis (and especially in the US given the rate at which they are remorselessly executed on the streets by the police) to violent protest. I believe history points out that no progress will be made without violent protest. So in a straight choice between Malcolm X and MLK I believe Malcolm X has the right approach, I think that's clear?

I suspect you believe that sufficient progress in the UK has been made (because people of colour "have never had it so good" in this country to paraphrase) to justify violent protest. I'm not sure I really believe that you believe that about the US, but no matter...

If I am correct in your belief, then there really isn't any point in discussing it further, since our difference of opinion revolves around "how much progress" constitutes enough to not justify violent protest, and that really isn't an argument either of us are going to convince the other of. We probably can't agree on how much "actual" progress has been made in the first place...
Click to expand...
I agree we're close to ending the discussion and without being pernickety or arguing needlessly over finer points, I would say that's a fairly accurate summary in some respects of our differing positions.

Just a bit of tidying up if you would be so kind. I find a morbid fascination in how zealous your priorities in support of violence are, specifically for the cause of racial equality in the UK.

So taking the issue of damage: a black person's business is burnt down - ok or not ok?
A close (white) family member's expensive uninsured car (it's a riot, not covered) is destroyed - ok or not ok?
Taking the issue of violence: the black business owner suffers third degree burns trying to salvage his business from the flames - ok or not ok?
Your close family member is permanently blinded from a stray missile - ok or not ok?
 
Last edited:
hulloutpost said:
I agree we're close to ending the discussion and without being pernickety or arguing needlessly over finer points, I would say that's a fairly accurate summary in some respects of our differing positions.

Just a bit of tidying up if you would be so kind. I find a morbid fascination in how zealous your priorities in support of violence are, specifically for the cause of racial equality in the UK.

So taking the issue of damage: a black person's business is burnt down - ok or not ok?
A close (white) family member's expensive uninsured car (it's a riot, not covered) is destroyed - ok or not ok?
Taking the issue of violence: the black business owner suffers third degree burns trying to salvage his business from the flames - ok or not ok?
Your close family member is permanently blinded from a stray missile - ok or not ok?
Click to expand...

All of it is collateral damage and to be expected as a result of a system that oppresses a minority of it's population.

A close (white) family member's expensive uninsured car (it's a riot, not covered) is destroyed - ok or not ok?

Expensive cars of people of colour are destroyed, damaged and made inoperable on a daily basis? ok or not ok?

Taking the issue of violence: the black business owner suffers third degree burns trying to salvage his business from the flames - ok or not ok?

People of colour are subjected to acid attacks in public places regularly? Ok or not ok?

People of colour are beaten up, and permanently injured and disfigured by our police forces on a regular basis, ok or not ok?

Of course all this happens with far more frequency, on a far more regular basis if you are a person of colour than anything that might happen as a result of "violent protest"

Of course all of the members of the establishment could work much harder and spend more resources ending systemic racism and there wouldn't be any need for violent protest.
You want to stop your car being burned out? Work towards a fairer society, perhaps by electing some people who stand for that...
 
Sincilbanks said:
All of it is collateral damage and to be expected as a result of a system that oppresses a minority of it's population.

A close (white) family member's expensive uninsured car (it's a riot, not covered) is destroyed - ok or not ok?

Expensive cars of people of colour are destroyed, damaged and made inoperable on a daily basis? ok or not ok?

Taking the issue of violence: the black business owner suffers third degree burns trying to salvage his business from the flames - ok or not ok?

People of colour are subjected to acid attacks in public places regularly? Ok or not ok?

People of colour are beaten up, and permanently injured and disfigured by our police forces on a regular basis, ok or not ok?

Of course all this happens with far more frequency, on a far more regular basis if you are a person of colour than anything that might happen as a result of "violent protest"

Of course all of the members of the establishment could work much harder and spend more resources ending systemic racism and there wouldn't be any need for violent protest.
You want to stop your car being burned out? Work towards a fairer society, perhaps by electing some people who stand for that...
Click to expand...

Interesting that by your ethics everybody and everything can be collateral damage for the greater good, even down to close family members.

At least we may have some common ground in that it would appear we believe that the greater good can be more important than individual 'rights' and self entitlement. It's just that our interpretation of what constitutes the greater good is most probably at different ends of the spectrum.

With regard to all the examples you cite; I agree that none of them are acceptable and there are criminal laws that apply; naturally I am in favour of people breaking the law in the way you describe, being prosecuted. That much was obvious from my previous posts but I am glad to eradicate any doubt.

What wasn't obvious was how zealous your views were. If you are serious about even a close family member being blinded, I think you've made your views crystal clear.

I pity your anger and hatred towards other people.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.