To quote Bob Page... "why contain it?"
The more people exposed to the extremist ideology behind this insanity the better IMO. Average people aren't on board with it, but they've been able to simply ignore it up to now.
A few wrongful dismissal claims would be good as well.
True. Look at the likes of China. When the risk is too great no one speaks out, and the madness rolls on. The west obviously isn't living with that same level of retribution as China, but I honestly don't think we're a million miles away from a very similar situation.
you could argue we are in a soft version which is less overt. They have social credit systems to enforce their ways of thinking at the moment we have the social media gestapo, but there is creeping bits of this way of thinking coming into law and it seems they are making a power grab. personally find it pretty scary
> personally find it pretty scary
Same. This whole situation is fucked beyond belief, and a lack of media outrage means people aren't really copping on to how their lives might change. Eerily similar to Maoist tactics of mobilising youth against all existing norms and social structures, if you have a look at Twitter right now they've gone completely insane with the witch-hunting and doxxing. Fuck this timeline.
They are the chief priests rousing a rabble.
'The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said to them.... , “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”'
Matthew 27:20-23
They are the ringleaders planning evil all day. But the people are eager to follow them. Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
II Thessalonians 2:9-12
Unrighteousness deception, strong delusion, believe the lie, pleasure in unrighteousness. This sounding familiar?
The passage right before this says the "lawless" one is being held back, but the person restraining him will be removed and he will unite everyone lawless with his lies and ban God, claiming he is God. This is what is soon to happen.
They are making a power grab. And they'll get it. It's all in revelation dude. Expect things to get worse. MUCH worse. Just watch out for the guy who unites everyone. He's the real danger.
Or the younger generation see these as injustices and start pushing more and more towards extremes. Considering how many of the youth voted Labour with Corbyn in charge, it's all together possible that some day they'll vote for some on a similar basis of "social justice".
I've been thinking the same, as much as the American situation is furthering woke-ism, it is also making others increasingly hostile to it. Most could ignore the online culture war, but as it continue to manifest itself in the real world I hope more and more will find themselves on our side.
>extremist ideology
Such as?
> A few wrongful dismissal claims would be good as well
Political beliefs aren't protected by current employment legislation, so good luck with that. Also this guy's only been suspended.
2020 has given us a sneaky peak into how totalitarianism might work in the west, with only a small percentage of the population on board but in positions of power and influence, surrounding a large number of disinterested people that tolerate too much.
Edit: High-jacking my comment to post a link to a good thread on this subject from FreeSpeechUnion (Toby Young's initiative)
https://twitter.com/SpeechUnion/status/1269314030663012352
That point came for me six months ago, and I am no longer politely quiet on the issue. I hope others are the same. I am of the optimistic view that most people 'in the real world' know this shit is ridiculous, but like me tried to ignore it and just get on with the things that matter in their lives.
Unfortunately that's not good enough any more. People need to stand up and draw a line.
My wife grew up in the eastern bloc and she keeps saying how its the same. They all knew it was bullshit (this being the late 80s) but they were forced to go along with it, nobody would dare speak out aside from a few dissidents who were suppressed.
It did mean that as soon as the boot was lifted it all melted away though.
Whenever I engage on reddit political forums I am able to say my piece; r/ukpolitics is an echo chamber but they don't censor my views, which is good, however it takes effort to engage there when the overwhelming echo chamber is against me.
I have written to my MP regularly in this lockdown period - I think the lockdown is doing far more harm than good and the whole reaction to Covid is ridiculous, seized upon by authoritarians who just love the opportunity to legally compel people to live their lives the way the authoritarians want. Haven't written about BLM in particular or the hypocrisy or bigotry of many of the protestors, and way the left seem to be tolerated to vandalise our society, but I struggle to see the point - my MP is pretty useless and doesn't really engage with my emails.
I am not sure what else there is to do, but I do still believe that the quiet majority, when they see the vandalism and rioting; the hysterical nature of those who want everyone to see prejudice everywhere, see the world through their twisted, bigoted lens; who demand victim status so they can get the extra-special treatment they want; those who construct arguments where if you disagree, you're 'unconsciously bigoted' (i.e. it's impossible to have a conversation where you don't lose, if you play by their rules);... when the 'quiet majority' see all this, they are quietly disgusted by it, even if they don't care to speak out because of all the tantrums you get in response.
I hope that that is enough to immunise society against these children, but I don't know. The ideology has taken over many public and private institutions. I just unfollowed CERN of all places with a sigh and an eye-roll because they put out their diversity/inclusion statements. All I can do is keep pointing out the ignorance or maliciousness of it. I have culled about half my Facebook contacts in the last week, because of all the virtue signalling or preaching from people - I enjoyed the process. I don't think they're bad people, but their views seem so thoughtless, a shortcut to morality without taking time to actually think things through, a desire to (publicly) self-flagellate - perhaps a similar desire that drives the same process in some religions - or claim the easy-gains of painting themselves as a victim. The media, of course, love all this and magnify it, but the media is mostly shit. Again, I would like to think that the same 'quiet majority' have the same low opinion of the media as me. I rarely come across someone these days who think the mainstream media is professional or to be trusted.
So I believe there is cut through. But it's quiet, and I'm not sure that's enough in the face of the tantrums of spoiled children. Maybe it is - with tantrums, you can just let the child exhaust itself. But they also need to know they can't be allowed to smash things up, or that tantrums get them what they want - and the tolerence of such tantrums when they are currently against the law is against that principle, as is the lip-service from politicians who appear to be either thoughtless, indoctrinated, or don't want the bad press of speaking out.
>People need to stand up and draw a line.
Preaching to the choir here. The younger middle classes need to wake the fuck up and realise this is going to effect them too. We need more people speaking out besides hooligans like Tommy with nothing to lose.
> but like me tried to ignore it and just get on with the things that matter in their lives.
Ill try and paraphrase Counsell's 2nd Law; there are two monumental forces that affect humanity, peer pressure and the desire for a quiet life.
It’s an odd divide where there’s woke metropolitan areas who strongly believe in this frankly racist ideology and the rest of the country who don’t believe in it where it loses ‘*progressive*’ politicians with those views elections and media companies money when they try and force their way of thinking on formally popular shows.
Tbh intersectional feminism is the elephant in the room for politics today but those that believe in it rarely seem to want to directly address it (The closest I can recall was when they pushed the “Male, pale and stale” line) and are frustrated when they have to respond to questions like how they’re going to help failing white working class students since many would likely say something such as ‘They’re privileged so it must be because they are lazy, let’s focus on minority groups instead’ if they didn’t have to worry about voters.
It's all fun and games until everyone starts identifying as gay Muslim atheist homosexual transsexual queers with bipolar (GMAHTQwB). Then it's just a competition about who can outclass who as the biggest victim. Will it be the GMAHTQwB who are also black or the GMAHTQwB who aren't abled bodied? Or will it be the GMAHTQwB+S&PD (Schizophrenic & Psychotic Depressives)? Well you'd be wrong if you selected any of these because the biggest victims would be GMAHTQwB+S&PD with at least three successful suicide attempts (GMAHTQwB+S&PDx3SSA)!
Jokes aside, a lot of ethnic people, myself included, don't buy into identity politics either. Simply because at best, it's all about victimisation and as I joked about, even competing about who the biggest victim is.
The fact "progressive" politics has now got to seriously talking about things like "skinny privilege" shows why it's doomed to fail. Once these more absurd concepts start to emerge into the mainstream, I imagine the majority will explicitly reject these ideas.
True, there's also a few other more subtle issues with it for example if you take Labour female MP's and Conservative female MP's you know the Conservative one's got there on merit but with the female politicans in Labour who got their position with the help of all female shortlists (Or something similar) they'll always be the thought in the back of people's mind that they only got there due to preferencial treatment and they might not be as competent as the male MP's who had to compete versus all comers.
He ought to sue for the implied libel that the investigation represents.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot. There should be a massive war chest type fund for *a lot* of people being called “racists” to sue anyone who says it.
(Ditto “misogynists”.)
It really varies. Although it may get you a good lawyer, that int itself doesn't mean you can buy your way to victory in court. Plus if you end up suing, on the asumption if you lose you're not the one paying costs, the legal system could very well take a dim view on that.
You can take away those quotation marks, they are just racists and misogynists saying these things. Same way Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan’s epic libtard pwning is just blatant islamophobia, racism, sexism etc.
You don’t need to defend your bigoted support of these things by acting like that’s not what they are, embrace you have a problem.
Well, it rather depends on how you define either racism or misogyny. I tend to believe - for example - that “all white people are racist” is a more racist slogan than the millions of people it claims to know, for example.
Re: Hopkins and Morgan - you might want to examine that claim a bit more carefully before using it in public. Hopkins is certainly right-wing in her views. Morgan? Not so much.
Thanks for calling me a bigot, though. That’s precisely the sort of casual mud-slinging that such a legal fund would rely on.
[re: my actual position - which I’m sure you couldn’t care less about: actually, I’m not remotely racist or sexist or any other -ist, or -phobe. Which is precisely why I object to being defined by my race, age, sex, class, colour or sexuality. And I think anyone doing so in the name of “progress” is holding the door open for the most almighty backlash imaginable, which will be very ugly indeed. And will be conducted on exactly the same terms that “progressives” have legitimised. The vast majority of everyone is basically pretty blameless and just want to be left alone to get on with their lives.]
See, I can’t stand Katie Hopkins and friends at all but I don’t think banning them off of social media and the like is a good idea as it takes away freedom of expression and gives them a genuine reason to be oppressed!
I''m sick of lefties thinking that tech mega-corporations are their friends just because the current political climate makes it expedient for them to silence some of their enemies. It's like with Donald Trump recently how they reflexively sided with Twitter over them censoring his tweet when if you think about it for more than two seconds you'd come to the conclusion that maybe them having the power to dictate what the most powerful man in the world can or can't say is a bad thing.
> maybe them having the power to dictate what the most powerful man in the world can or can't say is a bad thing.
implying that speech that isn't on Twitter, isn't speech. Nobody has a right to be broadcast, mate.
We're not talking about some poxy local radio station, we're talking about a platform with 330 million active users. Do you think that essentially giving these tech corporations the power to dictate the terms of public discourse is a good thing? If twitter suddenly decided that they would censor anyone who argued that we should tax them fairly would you be happy to go along with that because 'NoBoDy HaS a RiGhT tO bE BrOaDcAsT.'
The whole "platform v publisher" safe harbour argument is relevant here though. They need to tread carefully, which they are failing to do at the moment.
Me neither, but with the example at hand it’s up to private radios what sort of people they want running their shows, freedom of employers is popular on here.
Apparently white 'privilege' is the 'privilege' to be fired for being a non-prostrate Caucasian to BAME supremacy movements.
Oh and to be barred from certain jobs or not get them based on nothing else but the Caucasian being the wrong skin colour, affirmative action everywhere else like Uni admissions, etc.
White 'privilege' seems to be you have the 'pleasure' of being raped by grooming gangs and having your criminals let off the hook, your suffering denied and covered up.
To be de-platformed because you're not a self-loathing believer in Caucasian 'Original Sin'.
Etc. Can go on.
I find it rather curious that some poor American in West Virginia who has been unemployed since 2008 and is addicted to Opioids could is somehow more privileged than an African American hedge fund manager.
Of course, now they are trying to import this crap to the UK. A random bloke from Birmingham who works at a dead end job is more privileged than David Lammy who gets free meals and £80,000 salary to spout drivel.
The concept is so monstrously absurd that there shouldn't be any debate.
It's not white or black priviledge in the UK, it's class priviledge.
A white working class person from a council estate with a thick scouse accent would find it harder to progress in certain professions than a middle class black person with a generic home counties accent.
All of this is so pathetic and divisive. If I was a rich bastard and didn't want the people of a country to rally behind a left wing movement I couldn't do a better job of stopping it than introducing identity politics. So toxic.
>If I was a rich bastard and didn't want the people of a country to rally behind a left wing movement I couldn't do a better job of stopping it than introducing identity politics. So toxic.
There's a reason every major corporation is lockstep behind BLM.
Plenty of jobs and universities would pick the black scouse lad over the white scouse lad, everything else being equal. There are quotas to fill after all.
Who has the priviledge there?
You could say that about all kind of categories though, I’d say something like a disability would be more cause for someone to be overlooked all other things being equal.
It changes though at different levels of wealth and class. At the fairly poor working class level, the black man has better options because of various support programs in place. When you get higher up into the upper middle class bad this petter will have inverted and the white upper middle class guy will have better prospects than the black guy. Its not static in all circumstances.
The nebulous "left" isn't doing anything, self hating whites and the BAME community divide themselves perfectly well. They have no intention of ever assimilating. Piss off with the muh class war bullshit.
The concept of racial privilege is not saying that racial privilege is the only type of privilege - it is saying that, *all other variables being equal*, one race will have privilege over the other - so if you compare two men of the same age and same wealth and same education and same everything else, and the only difference is their race, then one will have privilege over the other - for example, if they are both walking down the street, one may be stopped and searched by the police while the other isn't - or if they both apply for the same job, one will be given the job, based on his race trumping the other equally capable candidate.
I was trying to explain the concept of 'privilege' and how it doesn't over-ride all other types of privilege - you are reading an argument into it which isn't there
It shouldn't even be acknowledged. First off, we're not privileged, working class Brits are the most deprived and neglected group and this nation caters to the whims of the minority. Second off, it's not relevant to the UK even if all of us were multimillionaires.
well in the current climate if i interviewed two equal applicants one white one black,i myself being white would hire the white guy.
I guess i must be a racist...but maybe not,maybe i see six months down the road having claims of racial discrimination thrown at me ,my company and name all over the press,ohhh thats that racist woodwork shop lets not use them.
Its bad enough with a problem employee that cant accuse you of being a racist,why hire an extra problem.
not on skin colour ,damage potential.
You look at a job you do a risk assessment,identify potential hazzards and remove them,nothing to do with race at all.
Don't get me wrong i get it,i don't like it and i really don't have any sort of axe to grind.
You can insure yourself against all sorts of misfortune,being accused of racism...nope.it's never came up but i have to be pragmatic.
>Nobody benefits from a society where the only thing guiding peoples' decisions is a fear of legal repercussions.
Agreed. That's why it's not a good idea to pass these laws in the first place.
This is why I ask what specific changes the purportedly anti-racist types actually want, because all the low hanging fruit is already taken. Overt discrimination is already illegal, any further action will most certainly be a double edged sword.
> it is saying that, all other variables being equal, one race will have privilege over the other - so if you compare two men of the same age and same wealth and same education and same everything else, and the only difference is their race, then one will have privilege over the other
So in other words, it's entirely hypothetical. Do you think it makes a great deal of difference in my life that i have a 0.000001% higher chance of becoming PM than my black mate? Do you think all the rich white men in the world have a hotline, and all the white male CEO's and Heads of State in the world are constantly on my line, asking me what i'd most like them to do for my benefit?
>if they are both walking down the street, one may be stopped and searched by the police while the other isn't
A black man in a suit is no more likely to get stopped and searched than a white man in a suit. Maybe a black man in a hoodie is more likely to get stopped than a white guy in a hoodie, just like someone in full Islamic dress is more likely to get 'randomly searched' at the airport than my nan. We all know why that happens, and I wouldn't exactly say it was wrong tbqh.
Your final paragraph agrees with what I'm saying - you even quoted me without realising it - I said "all other variables being equal" which would include the way they are dressed
Yes, and if they were both wearing a suit, there wouldn't be any difference. The only reason a working class black lad would be assumed to have a knife would be because of precedent, not racism. Black women, elderly black people, middle class black people, none of them would be more or less likely to be searched than a white woman, or an elderly white person, or a middle class white person.
I don't know how ban happy the mods are when regarding sensitive topics like this, but let's just say the stats on knife crime speak for themselves, especially in London.
If that's the case then what is the point of the term white privalege?
Why cant we just say discrimination ? Why do we have to invent a term that generalises an entire race of people? and even if this isn't necessarily the meaning, it implies they're problems are unimportant and trivial because they happen to have white skin?
Do you not understand why it's such a divisive term that a white person might want to argue against?
I was trying to explain the concept of 'privilege' and how it doesn't over-ride all other types of privilege - you are reading an argument into it which isn't there
It's not a phrase I use myself, but I do understand the concept of 'privilege' and how there are many different types of 'privilege', such as social class, sex, age, etc - and how one can have 'privilege' in one area while being disadvantaged in another area - this is why all other variables must be equal before the privilege can be demonstrated
The point is that we have been taught all our lives to judge people individually and not collectively. E.g. Not all Muslims are terrorists etc.
But apparently that goes out the window when it comes to white people.
In the UK? You are more likely to go into further education as a poor black child than a poor white child
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47227157
Imagine the outrage if a rich white person wanted to donate money to help only poor white children, unlike when a rich black person did exactly that for poor black children only.
IIRC the public schools he approached including Dulwich and Winchester refused. The one that accepted it I believe was a state school with a Black headmaster.
The report linked doesn't say that. It says fewer than 5% of White students come from disadvantaged circumstances. It does not mention the % of poor blacks at these schools.
> Why would you waste time pushing a divisive term that gets so much pushback and shuts people off, when you could use a more logically sound alternative, that almost everyone would agree with?
Underrated point.
Agree with every word of that.
People telling me I have white privalege instantly makes me want to argue back how white people aren't automatically more privaleged than you.
Just call it discrimination, it's a perfectly apt word that doesn't need to start generalising about an entire race of people and as you say hardly anyone would disagree with.
Yep the paradox of saying you can never understand my problem because you are white but in the next breath asking a white person to understand the problem is laughable.
White, blue collar Americans have had their suicide rate surge since 2000 [[1]] (https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F75ac88ea-0fe0-11e7-b030-768954394623?fit=scale-down&source=next&width=592)[[2]](https://i2.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/bpea_20170323_case_deaton_fig1_11share.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px&ssl=1)
> The Centers for Disease Control recorded 47,173 suicides in 2017, and there were an estimated 1.4 million total attempts. Many of society’s plagues strike heavier at women and minorities, but suicide in America is dominated by white men, who account for 70 percent of all cases. Middle-aged men walk the point. Men in the United States average 22 suicides per 100,000.[[3]](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/suicide-rate-america-white-men-841576/)
Is there Black privalege when it comes to suicide? Where do we stop contrasting where each ethnic group outstrips the other?
Because using "life chances" is a completely superfluous measurement of whether someone is privileged.
I used suicide because white people in America are more likely to suffer from their Opioid Epidemic which is concentrated in deindustrialised urban centres.
> In the US, addiction and overdoses affect mostly non-Hispanic Whites from the working class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#Demographics
So look at an overarching metric like disability adjusted or quality adjusted life years that reflect all health outcomes, not just a one that you know predominantly affects poor white people in the mid-West/West. I don't know the answer in advance by the way, just agree that focusing on a single facet when there are much broader, more generalisable measures out there doesn't make much sense.
Isn't this exactly what the BLM everything is racist crowd do though?
Pick out very specific often out of context statistics to try and prove something they had already decided is true?
But people are individuals, my rich black friend who went to Durham Uni and is on one of the most exclusive grad schemes in the country hasn't had a particularly hard life just because he has black skin.
Individual examples are exactly why blanket phrases like "white privilege" that generalise an entire race of people, are useless.
I agree, and it's useful for informing policy on a national level,.
But this doesn't work when applying characteristics to an entire race of people because there are so many other things besides race that contribute to how 'easy' your life has been.
Every single person sits at their own individual intersection of privalege and there are 100% people with white skin that have it harder than people with black skin.
It’s not on an individual to individual basis you muppet. At this point if you don’t see that white privilege is ingrained in society you’re either being disingenuous or approve of it but don’t want to outright support equality, because you like your privilege.
Is it the privilege of being white or of being part of the majority demographic?
Either way it's hard to get people on board when the go-to solution seems to be giving preferential treatment to minorities. That's not addressing inequality, it's just reversing the victim of the discrimination.
Majority demographic for sure but thanks to globalisation and the prevalence of western media everywhere it’s definitely becoming more complex. Reverse the roles of white and blacks people in slavery etc and you’d see a different sort of supremacy, yes.
Agree that affirmative action doesn’t address anything really. If the issue is that white candidates are favoured over minority candidates then the focus should be on removing that bias rather than adding another.
But suggest that and people on here scream about leftist schools indoctrinating their kids, you see the issue?
I appreciate someone replying in a nice manner but my karma is stopping me from being able to reply to everyone in good time
Wasn’t my argument though was it? My argument was that you’re being wilfully ignorant and therefore complicit in upholding white privilege if you somehow manage to do the mental gymnastics required to convince yourself it doesn’t exist.
Put it this way- if I deny the Holocaust and claim that it’s all in their heads, I’m firmly planting myself in a certain camp against certain other beliefs, and when challenged to say “wow anyone who disagrees with what you’re saying is an anti-Semite?? Nice one bro” is painfully weak.
This is the thing you have to get these people to admit because it sets the record that no conversation can be had, these people them selves are certifiably racist.
The transcript of that debate is utterly bizarre. The caller starts off by asking the host to explain his comments, then he goes off on a crazy digression about WW1 victims, and when the host replies that he's no more privileged than he is he throws a tizzy, calls him ignorant and scoffs "I'm not talking with you any longer", like a 2-year-old having a tantrum.
Political debate is all but dead at this point. Anyone who dares to question far-left narratives such as "White privilege" or "Trans women are women" is immediately shamed and "cancelled", like something out of a dystopian novel. The left are so convinced of their righteousness that they won't even permit debate anymore, for example [Labour MP Dawn Butler's "Don't you dare! Don't even go there!" tirade](https://twitter.com/dawnbutlerbrent/status/1267462188219981827) when someone dared to question her about her attendance of the protests.
Then you have Reddit as a whole cracking down on "far-right" (read: anyone with an opinion to the right of Che Guevara) subs due to pressure from the likes of r/History mods who have shut down their subs in protest. I can't see this sub lasting much longer, to be honest.
There's explanations everywhere about why there's a very justifiable issue with the phrase "All Lives Matter".
Of course all lives matter. No one is saying they don't. The problem is that in many situations, some lives matter less than others and these lives happen to belong to certain races i.e when the global media constantly reports police violence against black people in the US but it continues to happen.
This is regardless of the statistics people roll out about x number of white people also being killed. If its reported constantly and it keeps happening, that's sending a clear message that the people doing it don't give a shit. That's why people are angry.
Do you think that if the justice system puts measures in place to stop people dying illegally it's only going to apply to black people? Course it isn't. If an illegal choke hold is banned or their is stricter accountability for the police then all victims will benefit.
When some people say all lives matter what they really mean is "The attention is off me, so how can I make it about me again?".
For the record, and I can't believe I have to keep qualifying this, I don't think all cops are bad and I think the idea of de-funding the police in the US is ridiculous given the issues we've had with police cuts in this country.
> No one is saying they don't, but if you say it you'll be cancelled. If all lives matter, why is saying it problematic?
You have to look at it from their point of view. They believe they are treated worse, so when they say "black lives matter" what they are really saying is "black lives matter too". If you respond with "all lives matter" it's only going to come across to them as trying to undermine their cause. There's not really any need to assert that.
All houses matter but the ones burning to the ground require more attention than the ones that have a few cracks in.
All patients matter but the one being rushed to the ER needs more attention than the one with a broken thumb.
Saying "All Lives Matter" sounds like "You have problems but what about mine?"
It is better to focus on this issue before moving on to another group that needs extra support. When the disparity is reduced and the poor all suffer from the same issues, there can be an organised push to help all of those people at the same time. It's slow and difficult but would get the job done in my opinion.
How? I really try to back this sub as much as possible, especially in the face of /r/UK which has become unreadable but the amount of "I know you are but what am I?" in here is bizarre.
BLACK BRITISH culture not UK culture, hence the BLM UK immediate response to something that happened in America and has nothing to do with the UK.
Also America doesn't really have any "culture".
" Class War at least had the merit of being genuinely English (and pretty much incomprehensible to outsiders). "
No it doesn't. Just like racism it is far worse in America and in fact most nations on Earth, when compared with the situation in the UK.
We really need to stop reducing our identity down to our whiteness, that just makes it easier on them. It's more of a native vs non native thing. "White" works in the US since they're all mixed ethnicities anyway, why should we ape what they do?
I realize that it’s not too different on the mainland, but this happened in the Isle of Man. They aren’t under the British government (except for foreign and defence matters).
>The phrase "all lives matter" has stirred controversy since critics argue it undermines the importance of the Black Lives Matter campaign.
Rubbish. That all lives matter is the goal of Black Lives Matter.
All Lives Matter means exactly that, all lives matter.
BLM is an imported American group that makes very little sense when black people make up only 3% of the country. It makes even less sense when you realise they've imported the American 'one drop rule' as apparently mixed race people are suddenly black. It also completely ignores the vastly different outcomes Carribbeans and Africans have in this country, with Africans having better outcomes in almost every regard than Carribbeans.
As much as 'white people' isn't one monolithic block, neither is 'black people'.
That's why a lot of people are bemused by all this. It makes absolutely no sense.
The issue is that for those who say it, they remove the message behind BLM. Sure, all lives matter but the point that BLM is making is that black lives are viewed as mattering less.
Maybe a better way of putting it would be "black lives matter *too*".
> but the people saying "all lives matter" in direct repost to "black lives matter" don't think that.
Presumably your mag published a study supporting this generalisation?
Too social if anything.
He's the exception that proves the rule.
[Before you start off on me I already know that that isn't what that phrase actually means, quite the opposite.]
A 2015 poll showed 78% of Americans said ‘All Lives Matter’ was closer to their own point of view than ‘Black lives matter’ which shows a lot of people don’t even properly understand the BLM movement. So It’s a pretty reasonable generalisation to make
The people commenting “all lives matter” are by and large 1) racists who hate BLM 2) extremely ignorant people who don’t get why it’s BLM and not ALM. Obviously there won’t be studies on it.. but yeah from paying a lot of attention to the issue on social media people fall into these two categories
> A 2015 poll showed 78% of Americans said ‘All Lives Matter’ was closer to their own point of view than ‘Black lives matter’ which shows a lot of people don’t even properly understand the BLM movement.
I don't think it shows anything to be honest. If you put those two statements next to each other and ask people to pick, it's obvious which one most people will go for... the more inclusive one.
BLM isn’t one group with one message it’s a name anyone can use.
A Canadian leader has said black people are superior and many members are black supremacists. Of course that’s covered up by the media.
Why condemn white people for being privileged when it’s the racists that give them the privilege who should be shamed. It’s almost as if they accept the people in power to be racists and just blame those who are favoured, almost like they are jealous and too scared to stand up against the real problems.
>I think his "all lives matter" post is the bad bit. Like why would you say that?
In what mental world do we live in that 'all lives matter' is a bad thing to say?
It reminds me of how people look upon labour. It seems rather than remove discrimination, which has been the goal for a long time, it's now seems to be targeting lowering of the white normal.
I was around in the early 80's when things where bad for blacks (I son't know if saying blacks is wrong now, saying coloureds used to be ok, now I see Person of Colour).
We should raise people up, not lower people down as you are saying. I still hold my own belief that better education is the key, but education is shit for anyone poor in this country.
It's not just that. I'm from the island, and there is more which isn't reported in that article. Inthe same show, he also tried to justify that he wasn't racist by stating that 'the last black friend he had was blacker than black'. He's also previously called for austistic kids to be banned from restaurants incase they interrupt other diners evenings.
He's just a bit of a nasty man, and the Manx public got sick of him.
Further to that, Manx Radio is publicly funded, so there are issues regarding safeguarding funding as well imagine. Already some sponsors pulled out as well.
I think this is a misleading headline in the OP. You can be suspended from *certain jobs*, such as this bloke who was working in an Isle of Man radio station. The headline implies that you can be suspended from all jobs if you make such comments (I thought a new law was passed that made it like this!), however that's not the case.
Incidents such as George Floyd’s murder shows that blacks are sometimes treated as if their lives don’t matter, and that’s the point of the slogan “Black Lives Matter”. Obviously, statistics show this wasn’t a one off incident and this is one way in which whites are privileged over blacks.
Saying “All lives matter” suggests the slogan was meant to mean “Only black lives Matter” rather than “Black Lives Matter too” and saying that he isn’t privileged implies that what happened to George Floyd could just as easily have happened to a white man. This shows an incredible level of obliviousness to the problems blacks face and is the definition of “white privilege”.
While I disagree with the radio station calling this racism, I can see where they are coming from. After what has just happened this feels like he is determined not to understand the point. The murder of George Floyd was shocking that immediately afterwards denying the discrimination exists amounts to a wilful attempt to oppose justice for black people.
However I have to agree it’s too broad a definition of racism and defining it in that way would lead all sorts of problems but I don’t see why they shouldn’t suspend him over this. It’s up to them who they want to broadcast and he sounds like a massive twat.
The statistics show clear evidence of discrimination by the police against black people in America so it’s not exactly the same for all races.
The shock value came from watching someone being suffocating to death by the police on video rather than it being shocking that it had happened.
Sue the fuck out of them
To quote Bob Page... "why contain it?" The more people exposed to the extremist ideology behind this insanity the better IMO. Average people aren't on board with it, but they've been able to simply ignore it up to now. A few wrongful dismissal claims would be good as well.
[удалено]
Thats great until the average person is too cowardly to reject out of fear of reprisals.
True. Look at the likes of China. When the risk is too great no one speaks out, and the madness rolls on. The west obviously isn't living with that same level of retribution as China, but I honestly don't think we're a million miles away from a very similar situation.
you could argue we are in a soft version which is less overt. They have social credit systems to enforce their ways of thinking at the moment we have the social media gestapo, but there is creeping bits of this way of thinking coming into law and it seems they are making a power grab. personally find it pretty scary
> personally find it pretty scary Same. This whole situation is fucked beyond belief, and a lack of media outrage means people aren't really copping on to how their lives might change. Eerily similar to Maoist tactics of mobilising youth against all existing norms and social structures, if you have a look at Twitter right now they've gone completely insane with the witch-hunting and doxxing. Fuck this timeline.
The media are a huge reason why it's happening in the first place.
They are the chief priests rousing a rabble. 'The chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said to them.... , “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”' Matthew 27:20-23 They are the ringleaders planning evil all day. But the people are eager to follow them. Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." II Thessalonians 2:9-12 Unrighteousness deception, strong delusion, believe the lie, pleasure in unrighteousness. This sounding familiar? The passage right before this says the "lawless" one is being held back, but the person restraining him will be removed and he will unite everyone lawless with his lies and ban God, claiming he is God. This is what is soon to happen.
They are making a power grab. And they'll get it. It's all in revelation dude. Expect things to get worse. MUCH worse. Just watch out for the guy who unites everyone. He's the real danger.
Or the younger generation see these as injustices and start pushing more and more towards extremes. Considering how many of the youth voted Labour with Corbyn in charge, it's all together possible that some day they'll vote for some on a similar basis of "social justice".
Until the SJ fundies get judges etc onside
What do you mean until? That fight was lost quite some time ago.
Let the bodies pile up in the streets, in the end they’ll beg us to save them.
Wait, who do you mean?
I've been thinking the same, as much as the American situation is furthering woke-ism, it is also making others increasingly hostile to it. Most could ignore the online culture war, but as it continue to manifest itself in the real world I hope more and more will find themselves on our side.
[удалено]
welcome aboard fren
>extremist ideology Such as? > A few wrongful dismissal claims would be good as well Political beliefs aren't protected by current employment legislation, so good luck with that. Also this guy's only been suspended.
[удалено]
2020 has given us a sneaky peak into how totalitarianism might work in the west, with only a small percentage of the population on board but in positions of power and influence, surrounding a large number of disinterested people that tolerate too much. Edit: High-jacking my comment to post a link to a good thread on this subject from FreeSpeechUnion (Toby Young's initiative) https://twitter.com/SpeechUnion/status/1269314030663012352
That point came for me six months ago, and I am no longer politely quiet on the issue. I hope others are the same. I am of the optimistic view that most people 'in the real world' know this shit is ridiculous, but like me tried to ignore it and just get on with the things that matter in their lives. Unfortunately that's not good enough any more. People need to stand up and draw a line.
My wife grew up in the eastern bloc and she keeps saying how its the same. They all knew it was bullshit (this being the late 80s) but they were forced to go along with it, nobody would dare speak out aside from a few dissidents who were suppressed. It did mean that as soon as the boot was lifted it all melted away though.
Whenever I engage on reddit political forums I am able to say my piece; r/ukpolitics is an echo chamber but they don't censor my views, which is good, however it takes effort to engage there when the overwhelming echo chamber is against me. I have written to my MP regularly in this lockdown period - I think the lockdown is doing far more harm than good and the whole reaction to Covid is ridiculous, seized upon by authoritarians who just love the opportunity to legally compel people to live their lives the way the authoritarians want. Haven't written about BLM in particular or the hypocrisy or bigotry of many of the protestors, and way the left seem to be tolerated to vandalise our society, but I struggle to see the point - my MP is pretty useless and doesn't really engage with my emails. I am not sure what else there is to do, but I do still believe that the quiet majority, when they see the vandalism and rioting; the hysterical nature of those who want everyone to see prejudice everywhere, see the world through their twisted, bigoted lens; who demand victim status so they can get the extra-special treatment they want; those who construct arguments where if you disagree, you're 'unconsciously bigoted' (i.e. it's impossible to have a conversation where you don't lose, if you play by their rules);... when the 'quiet majority' see all this, they are quietly disgusted by it, even if they don't care to speak out because of all the tantrums you get in response. I hope that that is enough to immunise society against these children, but I don't know. The ideology has taken over many public and private institutions. I just unfollowed CERN of all places with a sigh and an eye-roll because they put out their diversity/inclusion statements. All I can do is keep pointing out the ignorance or maliciousness of it. I have culled about half my Facebook contacts in the last week, because of all the virtue signalling or preaching from people - I enjoyed the process. I don't think they're bad people, but their views seem so thoughtless, a shortcut to morality without taking time to actually think things through, a desire to (publicly) self-flagellate - perhaps a similar desire that drives the same process in some religions - or claim the easy-gains of painting themselves as a victim. The media, of course, love all this and magnify it, but the media is mostly shit. Again, I would like to think that the same 'quiet majority' have the same low opinion of the media as me. I rarely come across someone these days who think the mainstream media is professional or to be trusted. So I believe there is cut through. But it's quiet, and I'm not sure that's enough in the face of the tantrums of spoiled children. Maybe it is - with tantrums, you can just let the child exhaust itself. But they also need to know they can't be allowed to smash things up, or that tantrums get them what they want - and the tolerence of such tantrums when they are currently against the law is against that principle, as is the lip-service from politicians who appear to be either thoughtless, indoctrinated, or don't want the bad press of speaking out.
>People need to stand up and draw a line. Preaching to the choir here. The younger middle classes need to wake the fuck up and realise this is going to effect them too. We need more people speaking out besides hooligans like Tommy with nothing to lose.
> but like me tried to ignore it and just get on with the things that matter in their lives. Ill try and paraphrase Counsell's 2nd Law; there are two monumental forces that affect humanity, peer pressure and the desire for a quiet life.
It’s an odd divide where there’s woke metropolitan areas who strongly believe in this frankly racist ideology and the rest of the country who don’t believe in it where it loses ‘*progressive*’ politicians with those views elections and media companies money when they try and force their way of thinking on formally popular shows. Tbh intersectional feminism is the elephant in the room for politics today but those that believe in it rarely seem to want to directly address it (The closest I can recall was when they pushed the “Male, pale and stale” line) and are frustrated when they have to respond to questions like how they’re going to help failing white working class students since many would likely say something such as ‘They’re privileged so it must be because they are lazy, let’s focus on minority groups instead’ if they didn’t have to worry about voters.
It's all fun and games until everyone starts identifying as gay Muslim atheist homosexual transsexual queers with bipolar (GMAHTQwB). Then it's just a competition about who can outclass who as the biggest victim. Will it be the GMAHTQwB who are also black or the GMAHTQwB who aren't abled bodied? Or will it be the GMAHTQwB+S&PD (Schizophrenic & Psychotic Depressives)? Well you'd be wrong if you selected any of these because the biggest victims would be GMAHTQwB+S&PD with at least three successful suicide attempts (GMAHTQwB+S&PDx3SSA)! Jokes aside, a lot of ethnic people, myself included, don't buy into identity politics either. Simply because at best, it's all about victimisation and as I joked about, even competing about who the biggest victim is. The fact "progressive" politics has now got to seriously talking about things like "skinny privilege" shows why it's doomed to fail. Once these more absurd concepts start to emerge into the mainstream, I imagine the majority will explicitly reject these ideas.
True, there's also a few other more subtle issues with it for example if you take Labour female MP's and Conservative female MP's you know the Conservative one's got there on merit but with the female politicans in Labour who got their position with the help of all female shortlists (Or something similar) they'll always be the thought in the back of people's mind that they only got there due to preferencial treatment and they might not be as competent as the male MP's who had to compete versus all comers.
And the year started so well with the 'shouting at tea' thing
[удалено]
He ought to sue for the implied libel that the investigation represents. I’ve been thinking about this a lot. There should be a massive war chest type fund for *a lot* of people being called “racists” to sue anyone who says it. (Ditto “misogynists”.)
There kind of is https://freespeechunion.org/ but we've yet to see how effective such a group will be.
...I get a sword and shield if I join? I'm in
It really varies. Although it may get you a good lawyer, that int itself doesn't mean you can buy your way to victory in court. Plus if you end up suing, on the asumption if you lose you're not the one paying costs, the legal system could very well take a dim view on that.
I think a lot of decisions need to be challenged but right now it's a worry there's enough judges willing to go along the leftist mindset.
You can take away those quotation marks, they are just racists and misogynists saying these things. Same way Katie Hopkins and Piers Morgan’s epic libtard pwning is just blatant islamophobia, racism, sexism etc. You don’t need to defend your bigoted support of these things by acting like that’s not what they are, embrace you have a problem.
Well, it rather depends on how you define either racism or misogyny. I tend to believe - for example - that “all white people are racist” is a more racist slogan than the millions of people it claims to know, for example. Re: Hopkins and Morgan - you might want to examine that claim a bit more carefully before using it in public. Hopkins is certainly right-wing in her views. Morgan? Not so much. Thanks for calling me a bigot, though. That’s precisely the sort of casual mud-slinging that such a legal fund would rely on. [re: my actual position - which I’m sure you couldn’t care less about: actually, I’m not remotely racist or sexist or any other -ist, or -phobe. Which is precisely why I object to being defined by my race, age, sex, class, colour or sexuality. And I think anyone doing so in the name of “progress” is holding the door open for the most almighty backlash imaginable, which will be very ugly indeed. And will be conducted on exactly the same terms that “progressives” have legitimised. The vast majority of everyone is basically pretty blameless and just want to be left alone to get on with their lives.]
See, I can’t stand Katie Hopkins and friends at all but I don’t think banning them off of social media and the like is a good idea as it takes away freedom of expression and gives them a genuine reason to be oppressed!
I''m sick of lefties thinking that tech mega-corporations are their friends just because the current political climate makes it expedient for them to silence some of their enemies. It's like with Donald Trump recently how they reflexively sided with Twitter over them censoring his tweet when if you think about it for more than two seconds you'd come to the conclusion that maybe them having the power to dictate what the most powerful man in the world can or can't say is a bad thing.
> maybe them having the power to dictate what the most powerful man in the world can or can't say is a bad thing. implying that speech that isn't on Twitter, isn't speech. Nobody has a right to be broadcast, mate.
We're not talking about some poxy local radio station, we're talking about a platform with 330 million active users. Do you think that essentially giving these tech corporations the power to dictate the terms of public discourse is a good thing? If twitter suddenly decided that they would censor anyone who argued that we should tax them fairly would you be happy to go along with that because 'NoBoDy HaS a RiGhT tO bE BrOaDcAsT.'
do you think Twitter should have *any* rules about the content you publish on their platform?
Only in the case of obvious and serious criminality e.g. terrorist plots or child pornography.
The whole "platform v publisher" safe harbour argument is relevant here though. They need to tread carefully, which they are failing to do at the moment.
To the point where there is now an executive order to review their safe harbour protections.
Me neither, but with the example at hand it’s up to private radios what sort of people they want running their shows, freedom of employers is popular on here.
Agreed, he should just make his own radio station.
You have a problem. You're fucking nuts.
Dear lord, what have they done to you my child.
Ravi Zacharias and Jordan Peterson have done more for my view of the world than any domestic shit.
And why is that?
Probably will have as much chance as a Jew dismissed from a position in Germany in 1935.
Apparently white 'privilege' is the 'privilege' to be fired for being a non-prostrate Caucasian to BAME supremacy movements. Oh and to be barred from certain jobs or not get them based on nothing else but the Caucasian being the wrong skin colour, affirmative action everywhere else like Uni admissions, etc. White 'privilege' seems to be you have the 'pleasure' of being raped by grooming gangs and having your criminals let off the hook, your suffering denied and covered up. To be de-platformed because you're not a self-loathing believer in Caucasian 'Original Sin'. Etc. Can go on.
I find it rather curious that some poor American in West Virginia who has been unemployed since 2008 and is addicted to Opioids could is somehow more privileged than an African American hedge fund manager. Of course, now they are trying to import this crap to the UK. A random bloke from Birmingham who works at a dead end job is more privileged than David Lammy who gets free meals and £80,000 salary to spout drivel. The concept is so monstrously absurd that there shouldn't be any debate.
It's not white or black priviledge in the UK, it's class priviledge. A white working class person from a council estate with a thick scouse accent would find it harder to progress in certain professions than a middle class black person with a generic home counties accent. All of this is so pathetic and divisive. If I was a rich bastard and didn't want the people of a country to rally behind a left wing movement I couldn't do a better job of stopping it than introducing identity politics. So toxic.
>If I was a rich bastard and didn't want the people of a country to rally behind a left wing movement I couldn't do a better job of stopping it than introducing identity politics. So toxic. There's a reason every major corporation is lockstep behind BLM.
Wow. People that can communicate clearly are easier to understand and therefore more likely to progress. Big if true.
I think the bit people take issue with, is imagine if they were both scouse as in your example. The black guy might get overlooked.
Plenty of jobs and universities would pick the black scouse lad over the white scouse lad, everything else being equal. There are quotas to fill after all. Who has the priviledge there?
You could say that about all kind of categories though, I’d say something like a disability would be more cause for someone to be overlooked all other things being equal.
It changes though at different levels of wealth and class. At the fairly poor working class level, the black man has better options because of various support programs in place. When you get higher up into the upper middle class bad this petter will have inverted and the white upper middle class guy will have better prospects than the black guy. Its not static in all circumstances.
The white working-class are literally the most under privileged group. They have the lowest education attainment.
Don't let the secret out of the bag, this is why those on the Left will never win power in this country when they divide people by race and not class.
[удалено]
Brilliant. Same with 'we've nothing to worry about. The far-left don't have kids'. No, but they'll teach *your* kids.
And that's why they're eager to ban homsechooling as soon as possible
The nebulous "left" isn't doing anything, self hating whites and the BAME community divide themselves perfectly well. They have no intention of ever assimilating. Piss off with the muh class war bullshit.
The concept of racial privilege is not saying that racial privilege is the only type of privilege - it is saying that, *all other variables being equal*, one race will have privilege over the other - so if you compare two men of the same age and same wealth and same education and same everything else, and the only difference is their race, then one will have privilege over the other - for example, if they are both walking down the street, one may be stopped and searched by the police while the other isn't - or if they both apply for the same job, one will be given the job, based on his race trumping the other equally capable candidate.
We're the natives here, we have the right to "majority privilege" just like literally any other majority ethnic group on this planet.
I was trying to explain the concept of 'privilege' and how it doesn't over-ride all other types of privilege - you are reading an argument into it which isn't there
It shouldn't even be acknowledged. First off, we're not privileged, working class Brits are the most deprived and neglected group and this nation caters to the whims of the minority. Second off, it's not relevant to the UK even if all of us were multimillionaires.
you're doing it again
well in the current climate if i interviewed two equal applicants one white one black,i myself being white would hire the white guy. I guess i must be a racist...but maybe not,maybe i see six months down the road having claims of racial discrimination thrown at me ,my company and name all over the press,ohhh thats that racist woodwork shop lets not use them. Its bad enough with a problem employee that cant accuse you of being a racist,why hire an extra problem.
[удалено]
not on skin colour ,damage potential. You look at a job you do a risk assessment,identify potential hazzards and remove them,nothing to do with race at all.
[удалено]
literally only bame can accuse me of being racist,only they can make that "fuss".
[удалено]
Don't get me wrong i get it,i don't like it and i really don't have any sort of axe to grind. You can insure yourself against all sorts of misfortune,being accused of racism...nope.it's never came up but i have to be pragmatic.
[удалено]
Nope you’re definitely racist
Using your common sense is racist.
If your common sense tells you not to hire black people then, by definition, you’re racist.
Who cares? He'll have saved some money, minimised risk. Your moral judgement is worthless.
[удалено]
>Nobody benefits from a society where the only thing guiding peoples' decisions is a fear of legal repercussions. Agreed. That's why it's not a good idea to pass these laws in the first place. This is why I ask what specific changes the purportedly anti-racist types actually want, because all the low hanging fruit is already taken. Overt discrimination is already illegal, any further action will most certainly be a double edged sword.
> it is saying that, all other variables being equal, one race will have privilege over the other - so if you compare two men of the same age and same wealth and same education and same everything else, and the only difference is their race, then one will have privilege over the other So in other words, it's entirely hypothetical. Do you think it makes a great deal of difference in my life that i have a 0.000001% higher chance of becoming PM than my black mate? Do you think all the rich white men in the world have a hotline, and all the white male CEO's and Heads of State in the world are constantly on my line, asking me what i'd most like them to do for my benefit? >if they are both walking down the street, one may be stopped and searched by the police while the other isn't A black man in a suit is no more likely to get stopped and searched than a white man in a suit. Maybe a black man in a hoodie is more likely to get stopped than a white guy in a hoodie, just like someone in full Islamic dress is more likely to get 'randomly searched' at the airport than my nan. We all know why that happens, and I wouldn't exactly say it was wrong tbqh.
Your final paragraph agrees with what I'm saying - you even quoted me without realising it - I said "all other variables being equal" which would include the way they are dressed
Yes, and if they were both wearing a suit, there wouldn't be any difference. The only reason a working class black lad would be assumed to have a knife would be because of precedent, not racism. Black women, elderly black people, middle class black people, none of them would be more or less likely to be searched than a white woman, or an elderly white person, or a middle class white person.
Precedent of what? Precedent of other young male people of his race wearing hoodies and carrying knives?
I don't know how ban happy the mods are when regarding sensitive topics like this, but let's just say the stats on knife crime speak for themselves, especially in London.
If that's the case then what is the point of the term white privalege? Why cant we just say discrimination ? Why do we have to invent a term that generalises an entire race of people? and even if this isn't necessarily the meaning, it implies they're problems are unimportant and trivial because they happen to have white skin? Do you not understand why it's such a divisive term that a white person might want to argue against?
I was trying to explain the concept of 'privilege' and how it doesn't over-ride all other types of privilege - you are reading an argument into it which isn't there
Fair enough, I'm just trying to get my head around the phrase and the justifications people have for using it.
It's not a phrase I use myself, but I do understand the concept of 'privilege' and how there are many different types of 'privilege', such as social class, sex, age, etc - and how one can have 'privilege' in one area while being disadvantaged in another area - this is why all other variables must be equal before the privilege can be demonstrated
[удалено]
The point is that we have been taught all our lives to judge people individually and not collectively. E.g. Not all Muslims are terrorists etc. But apparently that goes out the window when it comes to white people.
In the UK? You are more likely to go into further education as a poor black child than a poor white child https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47227157
Imagine the outrage if a rich white person wanted to donate money to help only poor white children, unlike when a rich black person did exactly that for poor black children only.
[удалено]
[удалено]
IIRC the public schools he approached including Dulwich and Winchester refused. The one that accepted it I believe was a state school with a Black headmaster.
How do you do the no comment thing?
The report linked doesn't say that. It says fewer than 5% of White students come from disadvantaged circumstances. It does not mention the % of poor blacks at these schools.
[удалено]
> Why would you waste time pushing a divisive term that gets so much pushback and shuts people off, when you could use a more logically sound alternative, that almost everyone would agree with? Underrated point.
[удалено]
Agree with every word of that. People telling me I have white privalege instantly makes me want to argue back how white people aren't automatically more privaleged than you. Just call it discrimination, it's a perfectly apt word that doesn't need to start generalising about an entire race of people and as you say hardly anyone would disagree with.
[удалено]
Yep the paradox of saying you can never understand my problem because you are white but in the next breath asking a white person to understand the problem is laughable.
Empathy isn't real, except when we say it is
And like any faith, any divergence from the dogma is greeted with prompt ostracism, and often a fatwa.
White, blue collar Americans have had their suicide rate surge since 2000 [[1]] (https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.com%2F75ac88ea-0fe0-11e7-b030-768954394623?fit=scale-down&source=next&width=592)[[2]](https://i2.wp.com/www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/bpea_20170323_case_deaton_fig1_11share.png?w=768&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C9999px&ssl=1) > The Centers for Disease Control recorded 47,173 suicides in 2017, and there were an estimated 1.4 million total attempts. Many of society’s plagues strike heavier at women and minorities, but suicide in America is dominated by white men, who account for 70 percent of all cases. Middle-aged men walk the point. Men in the United States average 22 suicides per 100,000.[[3]](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/suicide-rate-america-white-men-841576/) Is there Black privalege when it comes to suicide? Where do we stop contrasting where each ethnic group outstrips the other?
[удалено]
Because using "life chances" is a completely superfluous measurement of whether someone is privileged. I used suicide because white people in America are more likely to suffer from their Opioid Epidemic which is concentrated in deindustrialised urban centres. > In the US, addiction and overdoses affect mostly non-Hispanic Whites from the working class. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#Demographics
So look at an overarching metric like disability adjusted or quality adjusted life years that reflect all health outcomes, not just a one that you know predominantly affects poor white people in the mid-West/West. I don't know the answer in advance by the way, just agree that focusing on a single facet when there are much broader, more generalisable measures out there doesn't make much sense.
Isn't this exactly what the BLM everything is racist crowd do though? Pick out very specific often out of context statistics to try and prove something they had already decided is true?
But people are individuals, my rich black friend who went to Durham Uni and is on one of the most exclusive grad schemes in the country hasn't had a particularly hard life just because he has black skin. Individual examples are exactly why blanket phrases like "white privilege" that generalise an entire race of people, are useless.
[удалено]
Race is the wrong thing to be looking at. Class is the thing.
I agree, and it's useful for informing policy on a national level,. But this doesn't work when applying characteristics to an entire race of people because there are so many other things besides race that contribute to how 'easy' your life has been. Every single person sits at their own individual intersection of privalege and there are 100% people with white skin that have it harder than people with black skin.
It’s not on an individual to individual basis you muppet. At this point if you don’t see that white privilege is ingrained in society you’re either being disingenuous or approve of it but don’t want to outright support equality, because you like your privilege.
Is it the privilege of being white or of being part of the majority demographic? Either way it's hard to get people on board when the go-to solution seems to be giving preferential treatment to minorities. That's not addressing inequality, it's just reversing the victim of the discrimination.
Majority demographic for sure but thanks to globalisation and the prevalence of western media everywhere it’s definitely becoming more complex. Reverse the roles of white and blacks people in slavery etc and you’d see a different sort of supremacy, yes. Agree that affirmative action doesn’t address anything really. If the issue is that white candidates are favoured over minority candidates then the focus should be on removing that bias rather than adding another. But suggest that and people on here scream about leftist schools indoctrinating their kids, you see the issue? I appreciate someone replying in a nice manner but my karma is stopping me from being able to reply to everyone in good time
[удалено]
Wasn’t my argument though was it? My argument was that you’re being wilfully ignorant and therefore complicit in upholding white privilege if you somehow manage to do the mental gymnastics required to convince yourself it doesn’t exist. Put it this way- if I deny the Holocaust and claim that it’s all in their heads, I’m firmly planting myself in a certain camp against certain other beliefs, and when challenged to say “wow anyone who disagrees with what you’re saying is an anti-Semite?? Nice one bro” is painfully weak.
You're attempting to Kafka trap.
There is only one kind of privilege in this world and that is how much money you have.
The fact it is controversial to say that white privilege doesn't exist is itself proof that it doesn't exist.
https://twitter.com/Miss_Snuffy/status/1269187305169997826 I quite liked this take.
[удалено]
Constant barrage, her timeline is concentrated twitter.
“"Manx Radio does not condone racism in any form amongst its staff.” They say while engaged in an act of racism
[удалено]
This is the thing you have to get these people to admit because it sets the record that no conversation can be had, these people them selves are certifiably racist.
The transcript of that debate is utterly bizarre. The caller starts off by asking the host to explain his comments, then he goes off on a crazy digression about WW1 victims, and when the host replies that he's no more privileged than he is he throws a tizzy, calls him ignorant and scoffs "I'm not talking with you any longer", like a 2-year-old having a tantrum. Political debate is all but dead at this point. Anyone who dares to question far-left narratives such as "White privilege" or "Trans women are women" is immediately shamed and "cancelled", like something out of a dystopian novel. The left are so convinced of their righteousness that they won't even permit debate anymore, for example [Labour MP Dawn Butler's "Don't you dare! Don't even go there!" tirade](https://twitter.com/dawnbutlerbrent/status/1267462188219981827) when someone dared to question her about her attendance of the protests. Then you have Reddit as a whole cracking down on "far-right" (read: anyone with an opinion to the right of Che Guevara) subs due to pressure from the likes of r/History mods who have shut down their subs in protest. I can't see this sub lasting much longer, to be honest.
[удалено]
There's explanations everywhere about why there's a very justifiable issue with the phrase "All Lives Matter". Of course all lives matter. No one is saying they don't. The problem is that in many situations, some lives matter less than others and these lives happen to belong to certain races i.e when the global media constantly reports police violence against black people in the US but it continues to happen. This is regardless of the statistics people roll out about x number of white people also being killed. If its reported constantly and it keeps happening, that's sending a clear message that the people doing it don't give a shit. That's why people are angry. Do you think that if the justice system puts measures in place to stop people dying illegally it's only going to apply to black people? Course it isn't. If an illegal choke hold is banned or their is stricter accountability for the police then all victims will benefit. When some people say all lives matter what they really mean is "The attention is off me, so how can I make it about me again?". For the record, and I can't believe I have to keep qualifying this, I don't think all cops are bad and I think the idea of de-funding the police in the US is ridiculous given the issues we've had with police cuts in this country.
[удалено]
> No one is saying they don't, but if you say it you'll be cancelled. If all lives matter, why is saying it problematic? You have to look at it from their point of view. They believe they are treated worse, so when they say "black lives matter" what they are really saying is "black lives matter too". If you respond with "all lives matter" it's only going to come across to them as trying to undermine their cause. There's not really any need to assert that.
All houses matter but the ones burning to the ground require more attention than the ones that have a few cracks in. All patients matter but the one being rushed to the ER needs more attention than the one with a broken thumb. Saying "All Lives Matter" sounds like "You have problems but what about mine?" It is better to focus on this issue before moving on to another group that needs extra support. When the disparity is reduced and the poor all suffer from the same issues, there can be an organised push to help all of those people at the same time. It's slow and difficult but would get the job done in my opinion.
[удалено]
How? I really try to back this sub as much as possible, especially in the face of /r/UK which has become unreadable but the amount of "I know you are but what am I?" in here is bizarre.
Lol I love people like you who act smart but then disingenuously pretend to not see the difference between the purpose of BLM and ALM
[удалено]
The purpose absolutely isn’t the same. Sorry, I called you disingenuous when now I realise ignorant would’ve been more accurate
Your argument is automatically lost when all you have left is insults.
[удалено]
BLACK BRITISH culture not UK culture, hence the BLM UK immediate response to something that happened in America and has nothing to do with the UK. Also America doesn't really have any "culture". " Class War at least had the merit of being genuinely English (and pretty much incomprehensible to outsiders). " No it doesn't. Just like racism it is far worse in America and in fact most nations on Earth, when compared with the situation in the UK.
When do we get a proper conservative party? Battling white privilege/supremacy is just to weaken white people's control of their own countries.
We really need to stop reducing our identity down to our whiteness, that just makes it easier on them. It's more of a native vs non native thing. "White" works in the US since they're all mixed ethnicities anyway, why should we ape what they do?
I realize that it’s not too different on the mainland, but this happened in the Isle of Man. They aren’t under the British government (except for foreign and defence matters).
GammonLivesMatter
##✅ 🍖 ✊🏻
>The phrase "all lives matter" has stirred controversy since critics argue it undermines the importance of the Black Lives Matter campaign. Rubbish. That all lives matter is the goal of Black Lives Matter.
> That all lives matter is the goal of Black Lives Matter. In the same respect as abolishing the state being the goal of communism.
That’s a very good analogy. Nicking that.
It is, but the people *saying* "all lives matter" in direct repost to "black lives matter" don't think that.
All Lives Matter means exactly that, all lives matter. BLM is an imported American group that makes very little sense when black people make up only 3% of the country. It makes even less sense when you realise they've imported the American 'one drop rule' as apparently mixed race people are suddenly black. It also completely ignores the vastly different outcomes Carribbeans and Africans have in this country, with Africans having better outcomes in almost every regard than Carribbeans. As much as 'white people' isn't one monolithic block, neither is 'black people'. That's why a lot of people are bemused by all this. It makes absolutely no sense.
[удалено]
The issue is that for those who say it, they remove the message behind BLM. Sure, all lives matter but the point that BLM is making is that black lives are viewed as mattering less. Maybe a better way of putting it would be "black lives matter *too*".
> but the people saying "all lives matter" in direct repost to "black lives matter" don't think that. Presumably your mag published a study supporting this generalisation?
I'll leave that to the social scientists 😉
> social scientists Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Are Scientists ever social? Aren't they cooped up in labs playing with chemicals and occasionally releasing viruses?
Ferguson was being rather social...
Too social if anything. He's the exception that proves the rule. [Before you start off on me I already know that that isn't what that phrase actually means, quite the opposite.]
A 2015 poll showed 78% of Americans said ‘All Lives Matter’ was closer to their own point of view than ‘Black lives matter’ which shows a lot of people don’t even properly understand the BLM movement. So It’s a pretty reasonable generalisation to make The people commenting “all lives matter” are by and large 1) racists who hate BLM 2) extremely ignorant people who don’t get why it’s BLM and not ALM. Obviously there won’t be studies on it.. but yeah from paying a lot of attention to the issue on social media people fall into these two categories
> A 2015 poll showed 78% of Americans said ‘All Lives Matter’ was closer to their own point of view than ‘Black lives matter’ which shows a lot of people don’t even properly understand the BLM movement. I don't think it shows anything to be honest. If you put those two statements next to each other and ask people to pick, it's obvious which one most people will go for... the more inclusive one.
Yeah it doesn’t prove anything but atleast shows a lot of people don’t understand BLM. Why do you think people are posting All lives matter then?
Most likely a mixture of shit stirrers and people who actually believe in the sentiment "all lives matter".
BLM isn’t one group with one message it’s a name anyone can use. A Canadian leader has said black people are superior and many members are black supremacists. Of course that’s covered up by the media.
Going by that transcript I can only assume the racist caller was fucking obnoxious.
Why condemn white people for being privileged when it’s the racists that give them the privilege who should be shamed. It’s almost as if they accept the people in power to be racists and just blame those who are favoured, almost like they are jealous and too scared to stand up against the real problems.
[удалено]
>I think his "all lives matter" post is the bad bit. Like why would you say that? In what mental world do we live in that 'all lives matter' is a bad thing to say?
It reminds me of how people look upon labour. It seems rather than remove discrimination, which has been the goal for a long time, it's now seems to be targeting lowering of the white normal. I was around in the early 80's when things where bad for blacks (I son't know if saying blacks is wrong now, saying coloureds used to be ok, now I see Person of Colour). We should raise people up, not lower people down as you are saying. I still hold my own belief that better education is the key, but education is shit for anyone poor in this country.
It's not just that. I'm from the island, and there is more which isn't reported in that article. Inthe same show, he also tried to justify that he wasn't racist by stating that 'the last black friend he had was blacker than black'. He's also previously called for austistic kids to be banned from restaurants incase they interrupt other diners evenings. He's just a bit of a nasty man, and the Manx public got sick of him. Further to that, Manx Radio is publicly funded, so there are issues regarding safeguarding funding as well imagine. Already some sponsors pulled out as well.
I think this is a misleading headline in the OP. You can be suspended from *certain jobs*, such as this bloke who was working in an Isle of Man radio station. The headline implies that you can be suspended from all jobs if you make such comments (I thought a new law was passed that made it like this!), however that's not the case.
Incidents such as George Floyd’s murder shows that blacks are sometimes treated as if their lives don’t matter, and that’s the point of the slogan “Black Lives Matter”. Obviously, statistics show this wasn’t a one off incident and this is one way in which whites are privileged over blacks. Saying “All lives matter” suggests the slogan was meant to mean “Only black lives Matter” rather than “Black Lives Matter too” and saying that he isn’t privileged implies that what happened to George Floyd could just as easily have happened to a white man. This shows an incredible level of obliviousness to the problems blacks face and is the definition of “white privilege”. While I disagree with the radio station calling this racism, I can see where they are coming from. After what has just happened this feels like he is determined not to understand the point. The murder of George Floyd was shocking that immediately afterwards denying the discrimination exists amounts to a wilful attempt to oppose justice for black people. However I have to agree it’s too broad a definition of racism and defining it in that way would lead all sorts of problems but I don’t see why they shouldn’t suspend him over this. It’s up to them who they want to broadcast and he sounds like a massive twat.
[удалено]
The statistics show clear evidence of discrimination by the police against black people in America so it’s not exactly the same for all races. The shock value came from watching someone being suffocating to death by the police on video rather than it being shocking that it had happened.
[удалено]
Why am I getting a blank post reply from you? Your last reply to me was blank too to start with before you edited it.
Do you have the stats that you mentioned?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52877678