Current Affairs The Landmarks of Slavery;

[dead_soft]

You can't be serious.

I’m not sure why you say that when you could just answer?

 

[Tubey]

I hate seeing that stuff too. But in my mind, looters and extremists are enemies of a movement, not representative of them. The core message is one that is just and should be listened to.

And again, the players aren't doing any of those things, they're just kneeling. I don't think of the anarchic elements of BLM protests when they do it, and don't understand people who do. I just see a solemn, peaceful gesture. It's not up to them to come up with another gesture that you and Millwall fans would be okay with

And again, you can't disassociate the gesture from the meaning.

Guardiola wears a yellow ribbon in support of Catalan independence, he's supporting the politics of it. He says he's "just supporting democracy" - nope. He's supporting the politics of Catalan independence, whether he likes it or not.

Same thing here. You keep saying it's "just kneeling", Moomin says it's "peaceful", like it's in its own little bubble. No. It's associated strongly with an extremist political ideology, just as the Quenelle is associated with anti-semitism and not just some crap French comedian.

 

[Tubey]

I’m not sure why you say that when you could just answer?

Because I can't comprehend why you'd ask the question. It's such a common sense response that I feel stupid even giving it.

But here's the BLM mission statement which even points out the obviousness of it, because they're not braindead. Important bits bolded.

About - Black Lives Matter

Get involved in the Fight for Black lives. Contact a local chapter, make a donation, make a purchase, and find resources and actions.

blacklivesmatter.com

We are expansive. We are a collective of liberators who believe in an inclusive and spacious movement. We also believe that in order to win and bring as many people with us along the way, we must move beyond the narrow nationalism that is all too prevalent in Black communities. We must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.

 

[tsubaki]

And again, you can't disassociate the gesture from the meaning.

Guardiola wears a yellow ribbon in support of Catalan independence, he's supporting the politics of it. He says he's "just supporting democracy" - nope. He's supporting the politics of Catalan independence, whether he likes it or not.

Same thing here. You keep saying it's "just kneeling", Moomin says it's "peaceful", like it's in its own little bubble. No. It's associated strongly with an extremist political ideology, just as the Quenelle is associated with anti-semitism and not just some crap French comedian.

You can't disassociate the gesture from the meaning, but you can absolutely throw about the word "extremist" to describe whatever you don't like and then make a flagrant comparison to anti-semitism.

 

[Tubey]

This is a whole load of straw folks. For a start, MLK has been completely sanitized from the leader of a violent thug movement of the late 50s and early 60s to a saint, largely because he died and his memory could be safely turned into something benign, stripped of his demands for economic equality to someone who was only asking for Black Americans to share in the same American dream that doesn't exist for most White Americans. As an aside, the criticisms made of MLK when he was alive (and other figures like Robeson) are very reminiscent of the criticisms made of BLM today, often by the same sort of right-wing types - un-American, communist, traitors, violent thugs etc etc.

Then there is Turing - yes, something as offensive as that to someone who did as much (albeit secretly) to help this country wouldn't happen to a gay man because he was gay nowadays. However the British government has (and has ever since Turing) done things which have been arguably as vindictively needless as that was - things like Aberfan, Hillsborough, the treatment of people who were given contaminated blood transfusions, the treatment of postmasters wrongfully criminalized by their own management, and what happened to those completely innocent people who woke up one morning and found that because they hadn't kept sufficiently detailed records of their forty years living and working in the UK as UK passport holders that they could now be expelled, denied needed medical treatment (or billed tens of thousands when they did get it) and basically screwed over.

Yes, they didn't do any of that because they hated British passport holders of a certain age from the Carribean, haemophiliacs, post office workers, Welsh schoolchildren or people whose loved ones went to an FA Cup semi final and never came home - but they still did it, to completely innocent people whose lives were ended or ruined, and then refused for years (and continue to refuse in some cases) to put it right.

Yeah..... all of which ignores the central point, so much so I don't understand what you're responding to.

The central point was "things have improved" - they have. Drastically. These aren't "strawmen" arguments; they've improved. You can't present anything to say otherwise, because you'd be lying.

 

[Tubey]

You can't disassociate the gesture from the meaning, but you can absolutely throw about the word "extremist" to describe whatever you don't like and then make a flagrant comparison to anti-semitism.

No. Defunding the police, abolishing prisons - these are extremist political views. It doesn't matter whether I "like" them or not, they are what they are.

And again, central point was "you can't disassociate the gesture from the meaning" - you don't like the essential truth of that so you tried some sort of weird attack to deflect it.

When footballers kneel, a lot of people see support for the politics of BLM inherent to that gesture. Fact.

 

[dead_soft]

Because I can't comprehend why you'd ask the question. It's such a common sense response that I feel stupid even giving it.

But here's the BLM mission statement which even points out the obviousness of it, because they're not braindead. Important bits bolded.

About - Black Lives Matter

Get involved in the Fight for Black lives. Contact a local chapter, make a donation, make a purchase, and find resources and actions.

blacklivesmatter.com

We are expansive. We are a collective of liberators who believe in an inclusive and spacious movement. We also believe that in order to win and bring as many people with us along the way, we must move beyond the narrow nationalism that is all too prevalent in Black communities. We must ensure we are building a movement that brings all of us to the front.

I’d hope you’d stress tested such a firmly held belief, as it clearly is, and one which you use to say how people of other races should protest and defend people I and others see as racists rather then just saying it’s common sense. What is and isn’t common sense changes quite a lot...

 

[tsubaki]

Yeah..... all of which ignores the central point, so much so I don't understand what you're responding to.

The central point was "things have improved" - they have. Drastically. These aren't "strawmen" arguments; they've improved. You can't present anything to say otherwise, because you'd be lying.

You are confusing difference with improvement. As I said, yes the state wouldn't ruin the life of a gay man just because he is gay nowadays. That is a good thing.

They would however ruin his life because (for example) he had a blood transfusion in the 80s and caught some life-ruining disease from contaminated blood.

The life is still ruined, the apology (or justice) still denied, the restitution not made.

Or come to think of it lets mention something we would probably agree on - Brexit. If these incompetents lead us into the abyss, they'll have ruined potentially millions of lives, caused suicides, wrecked businesses and marriages and caused untold stress to completely innocent up and down the land.

Does the fact that they aren't doing it because they hate British people make the outcomes more acceptable?

 

[Tubey]

I’d hope you’d stress tested such a firmly held belief, as it clearly is, and one which you use to say how people of other races should protest and defend people I and others see as racists rather then just saying it’s common sense. What is and isn’t common sense changes quite a lot...

Mate I'd go through plenty of instances throughout history, including within the civil rights movement itself, which shows the importance of it, but I'd be "strawmanning" again apparently.

Direct action is limited in what it can do; it's how you then utilise it long term that counts.

So I'll give one example. Rosa Parks. Direct action, led to the bus boycott. Drew international eyes on the unfairness of it. The boycott worked. They then took the win, gave white supremacists a rope to hang themselves with, and rode the momentum. The actual direct action itself lasted a comparative short time; the long term effect of it was profound to the point it's taught in history books. Because they didn't jump the shark - within a year, blacks were generally at the back of the bus again, but the point had been well and truly made and progression was happening - hearts and minds had been won and the pendulum had begun to swing decisively in favour of civil rights.

If that's a strawman, so be it.

 

[Tubey]

You are confusing difference with improvement. As I said, yes the state wouldn't ruin the life of a gay man just because he is gay nowadays. That is a good thing.

They would however ruin his life because (for example) he had a blood transfusion in the 80s and caught some life-ruining disease from contaminated blood.

The life is still ruined, the apology (or justice) still denied, the restitution not made.

Or come to think of it lets mention something we would probably agree on - Brexit. If these incompetents lead us into the abyss, they'll have ruined potentially millions of lives, caused suicides, wrecked businesses and marriages and caused untold stress to completely innocent up and down the land.

Does the fact that they aren't doing it because they hate British people make the outcomes more acceptable?

No sorry, it's improvement. Not just difference.

I mean clearly so, I don't even know why you're attempting to argue otherwise. This is "water is wet" types of obviousness.

I don't understand the Brexit analogy sorry. Not dismissing it, but don't get it. If you're talking about that it doesn't matter what the motive is if the outcome is the same or similar, then no I profoundly disagree; the motive matters. Incompetence is something you can't fight; racism is.

 

[tsubaki]

No. Defunding the police, abolishing prisons - these are extremist political views. It doesn't matter whether I "like" them or not, they are what they are.

And again, central point was "you can't disassociate the gesture from the meaning" - you don't like the essential truth of that so you tried some sort of weird attack to deflect it.

When footballers kneel, a lot of people see support for the politics of BLM inherent to that gesture. Fact.

They aren't extremist political views - as was pointed out in the summer, the Coalition government of 2010-2015 actually did defund the police in the UK to the tune of several billion pounds. The then Mayor of London - one B. Johnson - oversaw the Met being defunded by nearly a billion pounds and that was on top of massive sales of state property, including almost the entire training school and numerous police stations, including in places like Lambeth and Hackney. The prison estate likewise was also defunded (though not by as much as the police).

The only difference is that the likes of you didn't go around saying exclusionary tosh to describe it as such.

 

[Tubey]

They aren't extremist political views

Oh come on.

 

[tsubaki]

No sorry, it's improvement. Not just difference.

I mean clearly so, I don't even know why you're attempting to argue otherwise. This is "water is wet" types of obviousness.

I don't understand the Brexit analogy sorry. Not dismissing it, but don't get it. If you're talking about that it doesn't matter what the motive is if the outcome is the same or similar, then no I profoundly disagree; the motive matters. Incompetence is something you can't fight; racism is.

Its centrist obviousness though - bad things happen, but because we don't mean them its less bad than if we did. Meanwhile lets take a firm stand against people deliberately doing bad things.

 

[tsubaki]

Mate I'd go through plenty of instances throughout history, including within the civil rights movement itself, which shows the importance of it, but I'd be "strawmanning" again apparently.

Direct action is limited in what it can do; it's how you then utilise it long term that counts.

So I'll give one example. Rosa Parks. Direct action, led to the bus boycott. Drew international eyes on the unfairness of it. The boycott worked. They then took the win, gave white supremacists a rope to hang themselves with, and rode the momentum. The actual direct action itself lasted a comparative short time; the long term effect of it was profound to the point it's taught in history books. Because they didn't jump the shark - within a year, blacks were generally at the back of the bus again, but the point had been well and truly made and progression was happening - hearts and minds had been won and the pendulum had begun to swing decisively in favour of civil rights.

If that's a strawman, so be it.

This is exactly where you are going wrong - yes, Rosa Parks rode that bus. That isn't the be all and end all of her career fighting racism, and if you look further (even just read her Wikipedia article ffs) you'd see that she actually did far more of what you would then and now call political extremism.

 

[Tubey]

This is exactly where you are going wrong - yes, Rosa Parks rode that bus. That isn't the be all and end all of her career fighting racism, and if you look further (even just read her Wikipedia article ffs) you'd see that she actually did far more of what you would then and now call political extremism.

No ffs that wasn't my point, at all, in any way. I was talking about the actual event - the Montgomery Bus Boycott - and the reaction to it; not giving a thorough overview on the life and works of Miss. Parks.

How is that not obvious? How much plainer can I make that point?

And do I really have to say I studied this subject at university before you wouldn't make a daft Wikipedia comment?

Baffling.