A letter on justice and open debate.

[Dax777]

So you say and keep saying. There are a lot of people firmly declaring that women/black/minorities are not victims. Yet their personal experience, their histories say otherwise.

Okay, here is where we must make sure we keep the claims in out argument tight. I have neither said nor inferred anything above. I particularly said nothing about history. As it will be dumb not to recognize the historical harms (especially in America) due to slavery and Jim Crow that black people suffered in the Antebellum South and Post War Jim Crow terror. But that history is not mine nor the experience of many black people today. As far as I know there are NO black slaves in America. So if you are black and in America you are almost guaranteed to NOT be a slave today. So no historical experience of being a slave acrues to any present day Black American. So none of us gets to wear slavery like it was our burden. It isn't. Not that of the descendants of actual slaves nor those of us who came later from other parts of the world.

Now, let's get to what I in fact said, that my lady is not a victim. She is a high achieving Professional who did exactly what almost all high achieving Professional before her have had to do. Took her luck of having an averagely high IQ, mixed that with a lot of effort, hardwork and support. She is not a victim. Being black and a woman gave her both advantages and disadvantages.

Sadly, this is true of anyone in any field. And she took advantage of a significant number of her advantages and worked around her disadvantages. That's how she and most people in free countries succeed.

Civil Right movement in the sixties, Rosa Parks, Jim Crow, Slavery. I wonder how many people then were firmly declaring that black people were not victims, I mean how could they be? Slavery after all was ordained by God and in the Bible..

Funnily enough I intuitively covered this above before even reading it here. This is because I'm quite familiar with it all. Everything you've just written, I was saying constantly back in the 90s as a teenage college student. I was well versed in this polemic. Well schooled too. And thought it to others as a member of the American Students Associations Advocacy group. And like most kids I believed it wholeheartedly. I deemed everyone who disagreed with me morally inferior at best and probably evil. I used to teach other students this stuff at every meeting, discussion group or panel Did this for from Sophomore to Senior year.

Now let me ask you a few questions about your statement aboce: Have you noticed how every argument about race and sex starts off with a recitation of its history? Do you ever wonder why that is? Where this style of arguing came from? Could you name any other fields or issues where one start off by reminding others of a historical facts that are already well established and known before appending their claim?

Do you even notice that you do the above on this issue? More importantly, do you want to know why you do it? These were the ideas I was teaching as a 19 year old.
My point here is this, none of this is new to me. I lived it. At least everything prior to Trans Rights was within my wheel house...

Now I know you are not going to listen to any of this because you have no intention of listening, so we can call it quits and move on.

This is a bit of projection on your part Bob. Not only do I listen, but I also directly respond to the claims you brought up. You on the other hand often manufacturer what you think I've said, then you compare it to something you believe. And conclude I'm wrong. But I'm used to that and won't hold it against you. :)

 

[Dax777]

This as a very old chestnut.

Think on this, the campaign for nuclear disarmament wants this country to abandon nuclear weapons, the "reasonable" folk say that's foolish, they prefer multilateral nuclear disarmament, which will never happen, therefore we continue to have nuclear weapons. The multilateral nuclear disarmers, in any practical sense, might as well be pro nuclear for all the good they do, because the end result is we continue to have nuclear weapons. It gets to a point where pro nuclear folk and multilateral disarmers are, to all extents and purposes indistinguishable, because despite their differences the outcome is the same.

Discrimination exists, you accept that. If we discount rich white blokes, I'm sure you and I can think of any number of groups with a legitimate axe to grind. What I cannot think of is any discriminated group that has not had to engage in some form of protest to get what they want and I struggle to think of any group that succeeded by widening their grievance net to encompass every downtrodden group in society. In fact those that oppose the aims of a particular discriminated group deliberately widen the grievance pot to confuse the issue to ensure nothing gets done. So Black Lives Matter becomes All Lives Matter, the motives of the movement are questioned, us and them lines drawn, culture wars stoked and no brainer basic assumptions questioned. Initial sympathy begins to slowly drain away, momentum lost and the issue fizzles out, usually with a prolonged enquiry, delivered quietly long after the fire has burned out.

So with all this distrust and noises off, it's important to see things for what they are.

The BLM movement has exposed two major players. Racists in our society who want racist and discriminatory practices to continue. And reasonable, predominately white folk, who don't consider themselves racist and do not display racism in their daily lives, but feel uneasy about BLM and their motives. These reasonable folk feel uncomfortable about some of the changes that BLM are demanding, they question the assumptions that BLM are making and suspect this might end up as a zero sum game, with them losing out.

So these reasonable non racist folk muddy the waters, obfuscate, engage in whataboutery, all with the best intentions you understand, and just like the multilateral nuclear disarmers being indistinguishable, in any practical sense, from the pro nuclear crowd, the non racist reasonable folk might as well be Tommy Robinson for all the good they do, because nothing changes.

Good! Now take the reasoning above and apply it to Blaxk Lives Matter.

How can one distinguish BLM from the Racist who wish the worst for Black people? Especially when one of BLMs stated solutions "Defund the Police" in effect reduces police presence in the most downtrodden Black communities with the highest amount of violence.

It is no surprise that Murders, Assaults and Raped have all gone up in these communities where predators are taking advantage of the pusshing back of the police.

Since the the George Floyd murder and the BLM push to defund the Police 14 kids under the age of 16 have died due to hang violence and predation. That's more than all the Unarmed black people killed by cops last year. And that's just kids.

Murders are Up between 80 - 200% in lots of these districts. Yet politicians are busy pandering and pretending they don't know why such an increase has happened.

If we use your reasoning of focusing on outcomes (AS WE SHOULD) in determining who's being helpful to the cause, BLM will wash out as a negative for the cause. As it's black folks dying at increased numbers over here.

 

[BobKowalski]

Okay, here is where we must make sure we keep the claims in out argument tight. I have neither said nor inferred anything above. I particularly said nothing about history. As it will be dumb not to recognize the historical harms (especially in America) due to slavery and Jim Crow that black people suffered in the Antebellum South and Post War Jim Crow terror. But that history is not mine nor the experience of many black people today. As far as I know there are NO black slaves in America. So if you are black and in America you are almost guaranteed to NOT be a slave today. So no historical experience of being a slave acrues to any present day Black American. So none of us gets to wear slavery like it was our burden. It isn't. Not that of the descendants of actual slaves nor those of us who came later from other parts of the world.

Now, let's get to what I in fact said, that my lady is not a victim. She is a high achieving Professional who did exactly what almost all high achieving Professional before her have had to do. Took her luck of having an averagely high IQ, mixed that with a lot of effort, hardwork and support. She is not a victim. Being black and a woman gave her both advantages and disadvantages.

Sadly, this is true of anyone in any field. And she took advantage of a significant number of her advantages and worked around her disadvantages. That's how she and most people in free countries succeed.



Funnily enough I intuitively covered this above before even reading it here. This is because I'm quite familiar with it all. Everything you've just written, I was saying constantly back in the 90s as a teenage college student. I was well versed in this polemic. Well schooled too. And thought it to others as a member of the American Students Associations Advocacy group. And like most kids I believed it wholeheartedly. I deemed everyone who disagreed with me morally inferior at best and probably evil. I used to teach other students this stuff at every meeting, discussion group or panel Did this for from Sophomore to Senior year.

Now let me ask you a few questions about your statement aboce: Have you noticed how every argument about race and sex starts off with a recitation of its history? Do you ever wonder why that is? Where this style of arguing came from? Could you name any other fields or issues where one start off by reminding others of a historical facts that are already well established and known before appending their claim?

Do you even notice that you do the above on this issue? More importantly, do you want to know why you do it? These were the ideas I was teaching as a 19 year old.
My point here is this, none of this is new to me. I lived it. At least everything prior to Trans Rights was within my wheel house...

This is a bit of projection on your part Bob. Not only do I listen, but I also directly respond to the claims you brought up. You on the other hand often manufacturer what you think I've said, then you compare it to something you believe. And conclude I'm wrong. But I'm used to that and won't hold it against you. :)

So history never impacts on or influences attitudes in the future? Be they societal or cultural? Well that’s total bollocks for starters. Surprised you went for that one.

But as I said earlier I know the game here, so let’s not pretend and blah, blah at each other. Life is too short.

 

[Dax777]

So history never impacts on or influences attitudes in the future? Be they societal or cultural? Well that’s total bollocks for starters. Surprised you went for that one.

But as I said earlier I know the game here, so let’s not pretend and blah, blah at each other. Life is too short.

There you go again Bob, not listening at all and just making up your own strawman to argue against. Again here is what I said:

it will be dumb not to recognize the historical harms (especially in America) due to slavery and Jim Crow that black people suffered in the Antebellum South and Post War Jim Crow terror. But that history is not mine nor the experience of many black people today.

I recognized the history and harm suffered by some of our black ancestors but stated that no one today is experiencing that particular harm. Nothing stated above is incorrect. There are almost no slaves, and Jim Crow laws have been abolished. Thus, no Black Americans are living the actual experiences of slavery or Jim Crow. NONE!

As it relates to "influence" "Impact" and "attitudes" etc... None of these words or ideas were expressed by me. You've simply just made up a claim a(i.e that I've claimed slavery has no influence) then attacked your made up claim (albeit with no facts or evidence, just by saying "you call bullshit"), and then turned around and claimed 'surprise' at my decision to go with that argument (even though I did no such thing). It's all quite funny to read.

But I get it. You don't want this discussion. So I'll respect your wishes :)

 

[The perfect fumble]

Good! Now take the reasoning above and apply it to Blaxk Lives Matter.

How can one distinguish BLM from the Racist who wish the worst for Black people? Especially when one of BLMs stated solutions "Defund the Police" in effect reduces police presence in the most downtrodden Black communities with the highest amount of violence.

It is no surprise that Murders, Assaults and Raped have all gone up in these communities where predators are taking advantage of the pusshing back of the police.

Since the the George Floyd murder and the BLM push to defund the Police 14 kids under the age of 16 have died due to hang violence and predation. That's more than all the Unarmed black people killed by cops last year. And that's just kids.

Murders are Up between 80 - 200% in lots of these districts. Yet politicians are busy pandering and pretending they don't know why such an increase has happened.

If we use your reasoning of focusing on outcomes (AS WE SHOULD) in determining who's being helpful to the cause, BLM will wash out as a negative for the cause. As it's black folks dying at increased numbers over here.

This is Robert Reich writing about the American experience.......

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tment-donald-trump-protests-race-george-floyd

What Defund the Police really means: replacing social control with investment

Some societies center on social control, others on social investment.


Social-control societies put substantial resources into police, prisons, surveillance, immigration enforcement and the military. Their purpose is to utilize fear, punishment and violence, to maintain what they consider order.

Social-investment societies put more resources into healthcare, education, affordable housing, jobless benefits and children. Their purpose is to free people from the risks and anxieties of daily life and give everyone a fair shot at making it.....

 

[BobKowalski]

There you go again Bob, not listening at all and just making up your own strawman to argue against. Again here is what I said:

I recognized the history and harm suffered by some of our black ancestors but stated that no one today is experiencing that particular harm. Nothing stated above is incorrect. There are almost no slaves, and Jim Crow laws have been abolished. Thus, no Black Americans are living the actual experiences of slavery or Jim Crow. NONE!

As it relates to "influence" "Impact" and "attitudes" etc... None of these words or ideas were expressed by me. You've simply just made up a claim a(i.e that I've claimed slavery has no influence) then attacked your made up claim (albeit with no facts or evidence, just by saying "you call bullshit"), and then turned around and claimed 'surprise' at my decision to go with that argument (even though I did no such thing). It's all quite funny to read.

But I get it. You don't want this discussion. So I'll respect your wishes :)

With you? No. You don’t believe your arguments anymore than I do. The point of your many, many, so many words is to obfuscate. Endless clouds of chaff with lots of winky, smiley faces. We’ve had this conversation before if I recall.

 

[Dax777]

With you? No. You don’t believe your arguments anymore than I do. The point of your many, many, so many words is to obfuscate. Endless clouds of chaff with lots of winky, smiley faces. We’ve had this conversation before if I recall.

I'd let others decide which one of us wasn't playing fair.

But I'll give you that I do wrote too much. Brevity is a skill. I long to possess it. But unfortunately with folks like you I am forced to write a lot just to combat your skill of purposeful misinterpretation.

I have more to say but I shall stop there. For the sake of brevity.

 

[Fame Monster]

Val McDermid and Rowan Atkinson hit out at Scots hate crime Bill

Leading names from the Scottish arts world, including crime writers Val McDermid and Chris Brookmyre, have called for the Scottish Government’s controversial proposed hate crime legislation to be amended as they fear it would “stifle free expression”.

www.scotsman.com

This was always the danger. Parts of the UK are now trying to criminalise certain 'hate crime' but without having to prove that the defendant was hateful. This is a big backwards step for freedom of expression.

I think we can rule out Bernardo moving to Celtic anytime soon.

 

[Fame Monster]

Another example of someone being sacked for their political views - this time from Corrie.

Freedom of speech has taken an absolute battering in UK society over the past 12 month and it's long overdue for a change in legislation e.g. a free speech act, to guarantee people their livelihoods irrespective of what political opinion they hold (bar some very extreme exceptions).

This cancel culture era we're living in will hopefully be looked upon with utter disdain by future generations.

Exclusive: ITV Drops Corrie Director Over Facebook Posts On Industry Racism

Steve Finn directed Monday's episodes of the soap and contributed to the Christmas Day instalment.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

 

[Ric]

As a freelancer myself, I’m not sure it’s technically a “sacking” if an employer decides to no longer use your services. Sadly you just don’t get the same rights as a permanent employee. Secondly, it’s generally pretty unwise to publicly air dubious political views on social media if you’re in a relatively prominent position. It will invariably bite you on the arse.