FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Protesting Racism
Protesting Racism
Jump to: Newest in thread
Do feel free to post any other comedic parody to add to your positions 
NEWS THUMP
Black Britons jubilant after white Daily Mail columnists kindly tell them how to react to racism
July 14, 2021
Written by Arabin Patson
BAME people all over the nation have been celebrating following the decision of several posh white media types to explain the various ways black people can protest racism with nice, non-confrontational methods that don’t make anyone feel uncomfortable.
In Bristol, Jamaican-born Simon Williams interrupted his passionate dance of gratitude so he could express his deepest thanks to middle-aged pasty men in the press and in politics who told him how he should respond when discriminated against, or abused by racists.
He told us, “Most of my life, I’ve been flailing about trying to find my own ways to assert my dignity as a human in the face of repugnant hatred. But it’s always been so difficult as my other priority in life is not to disturb right-wing retired suburbanites who think they’re civil rights heroes because they went to a Lenny Henry show in 1988.
“But now, thanks to people who have been condemning BLM and vocal black people for years, I can see how all I need to do the next time d*unk yobs hurl racial slurs at me, is write a letter to the editor. I’ve been freed from my own blindness.”
Although they were not taking questions on their brilliant initiatives to instruct black people about anti-racist activism, several social media posts from fonts of wisdom such as Daily Mail columnist Andrew Hodges were still online for all to marvel at.
He wrote, “Why not form a choir and insert No To Racism in the lyrics of family favourites? Or perhaps a Diversity Day in the park with traditional English fun like a Maypole and Morris Dancers wearing the customary face….. ah.
“Just the Maypole then.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I thought the excuses for the opposition to taking the knee were exceptional on here tbf. It basically boiled down to..how dare you protest about something that affects you,because I dont agree with it" Isn't it amazing how people see things differently. I seen the opposition here saying 'They have a right to protest that gesture just as much as the players have a right to protest against racism' How it seems on here is protests are only allowed if the left agree with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Good times. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just trying to recall the what aboutery and deflection..they were foreign fans,why would a woman of colour encourage racism,and the old favourite..jezza
Good times."The OP is about protests. Not racism towards the England players. Do try to stick to the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This from John Barnes sums up the whole thing . https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_162652649248012&key=79bd9386a12d9ac58a81d42672c87dc4&libId=kr7rrcnu0100pw15000MLd4e5hkid&subId=87018&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.owtb.co.uk%2Ftopic%2F52678-club-statement%2Fpage%2F2%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fprogrammes%2Fm000xrby&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.owtb.co.uk%2Fforum%2F1-the-opinions4u-terraces-latics-forum%2F&title=Oldham%20Athletic%20Forum&txt=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fprogrammes%2Fm000xrby" I agree with his take on the simplicity of how we deal with Racism. So much more need to be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Have the Tories rammed through that bill yet that will let them basically arrest anybody who protests too loudly and annoyingly?" No "ramming" needed. Barely a murmur of descent on the majority benches. It will be opposed on all sides in the Lords but that will only delay its introduction. Unlikely to then ever be repealed as Governments rarely surrender power... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads..." There were several opposed to it on the taking the knee thread . That James o Brian Did a great piece in it,on lbc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads..." Majority telling the minority* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name." Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders?" If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff." My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy'" What a silly argument!! We live in a democracy now. It is not allowed to break public property just because you don't like it. If your bulb is not displayed outside, how about your doors and windows. People who don't like them can break them? Who the hell are these protesters and what rights do they have to break them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy' What a silly argument!! We live in a democracy now. It is not allowed to break public property just because you don't like it. If your bulb is not displayed outside, how about your doors and windows. People who don't like them can break them? Who the hell are these protesters and what rights do they have to break them?" My windows are private property..your argument doesmt make any sense. Like I said in my 1st post..they disagree with a society which celebrates people who sold s@@@@ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy' What a silly argument!! We live in a democracy now. It is not allowed to break public property just because you don't like it. If your bulb is not displayed outside, how about your doors and windows. People who don't like them can break them? Who the hell are these protesters and what rights do they have to break them? My windows are private property..your argument doesmt make any sense. Like I said in my 1st post..they disagree with a society which celebrates people who sold s@@@@ " You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy' What a silly argument!! We live in a democracy now. It is not allowed to break public property just because you don't like it. If your bulb is not displayed outside, how about your doors and windows. People who don't like them can break them? Who the hell are these protesters and what rights do they have to break them? My windows are private property..your argument doesmt make any sense. Like I said in my 1st post..they disagree with a society which celebrates people who sold s@@@@ You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order." Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended." Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name." Members of the majority groups do boo taking the knee and tell those doing it that they should not "politicise sport". What is an "acceptable" protest to make that will bring about acknowledgement of a problem and effect change? Any comment on that? The original thread post. Do you think that people would tear down statues of sl@vers if they felt that they had received a degree of equality after over 70 years of mass migration let alone the hundreds of years before that? Remember that there had been decades of pertitions and protests to remove or modify many of these statues with no change made. Of course violence is wrong, but what should people do if things actually seem to be reversing let alone pai fully and slowly improving? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Members of the majority groups do boo taking the knee and tell those doing it that they should not "politicise sport". What is an "acceptable" protest to make that will bring about acknowledgement of a problem and effect change? Any comment on that? The original thread post. Do you think that people would tear down statues of sl@vers if they felt that they had received a degree of equality after over 70 years of mass migration let alone the hundreds of years before that? Remember that there had been decades of pertitions and protests to remove or modify many of these statues with no change made. Of course violence is wrong, but what should people do if things actually seem to be reversing let alone pai fully and slowly improving?" How many people booed? Do you have any statistics on that? How many people posted racist comments on social media? And how many people came out in support of black players? Players taking the knee is their right. I am happy for them. Some sections who do not believe in it, booed. That's their right even though I am not in favour of that. Most people believe in the country believe in the rights of black people and a few people booing doesn't take that away. Violence is unjustified in a democratic country no matter what the intentions are. That's the whole point of it. People will have different opinions in matters like statues and the protestors are not special compared to rest of the population to deal with it themselves. Russia has plenty of Lenin and Stalin statues. Does that mean they support the atrocities they committed? They don't have trouble accepting the past. There can be numerous opinions about the matter in a population of millions. No one has the right to take laws into their own hands. As I said above, these actions are counter-productive and one of the main reasons why the movement is branded Marxist - "I know what's right for the country and I will enforce it on everyone using violence" Are you seriously going to say that there hasn't been any progress made in racial equality in the past few decades? There has been plenty of progress made both in jobs and treatment of people. Is it perfect? No. But we are on the path of progress. Democratic means have always worked. Idiots who try to break that progress to win social media popularity have achieved nothing but putting a dent on the progress. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in." So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down?" Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob." You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them." You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them." Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples " Off the top of my mind, Suffragettes - Using violence was a step back for the movement. Even the leaders of the movement spoke publicly against window smashing campaigns saying that "This will lose support for our cause" - Something which I have been telling you for a whole day. Mandela doesn't count because South Africa wasn't even a complete democracy at that time. I don't have much knowledge about sequence of events that led to Berlin wall breakdown. Do you seriously think violence in Northern Ireland was a good thing? You don't care about the thousands dead? Colonial examples? Again, We are talking about democracies here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples Off the top of my mind, Suffragettes - Using violence was a step back for the movement. Even the leaders of the movement spoke publicly against window smashing campaigns saying that "This will lose support for our cause" - Something which I have been telling you for a whole day. Mandela doesn't count because South Africa wasn't even a complete democracy at that time. I don't have much knowledge about sequence of events that led to Berlin wall breakdown. Do you seriously think violence in Northern Ireland was a good thing? You don't care about the thousands dead? Colonial examples? Again, We are talking about democracies here. " The suffragettes used violence and,eventually, things changed. I didn't say it was a good thing.I said they used violence and ,eventually, both sides came to the table. You said violent protests achieved nothing. I have provided examples that prove this to be incorrect. You also missed out the poll tax and inner city riots. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Members of the majority groups do boo taking the knee and tell those doing it that they should not "politicise sport". What is an "acceptable" protest to make that will bring about acknowledgement of a problem and effect change? Any comment on that? The original thread post. Do you think that people would tear down statues of sl@vers if they felt that they had received a degree of equality after over 70 years of mass migration let alone the hundreds of years before that? Remember that there had been decades of pertitions and protests to remove or modify many of these statues with no change made. Of course violence is wrong, but what should people do if things actually seem to be reversing let alone pai fully and slowly improving? How many people booed? Do you have any statistics on that? How many people posted racist comments on social media? And how many people came out in support of black players? Players taking the knee is their right. I am happy for them. Some sections who do not believe in it, booed. That's their right even though I am not in favour of that. Most people believe in the country believe in the rights of black people and a few people booing doesn't take that away. Violence is unjustified in a democratic country no matter what the intentions are. That's the whole point of it. People will have different opinions in matters like statues and the protestors are not special compared to rest of the population to deal with it themselves. Russia has plenty of Lenin and Stalin statues. Does that mean they support the atrocities they committed? They don't have trouble accepting the past. There can be numerous opinions about the matter in a population of millions. No one has the right to take laws into their own hands. As I said above, these actions are counter-productive and one of the main reasons why the movement is branded Marxist - "I know what's right for the country and I will enforce it on everyone using violence" Are you seriously going to say that there hasn't been any progress made in racial equality in the past few decades? There has been plenty of progress made both in jobs and treatment of people. Is it perfect? No. But we are on the path of progress. Democratic means have always worked. Idiots who try to break that progress to win social media popularity have achieved nothing but putting a dent on the progress." You have used a lot of words here. I said that violence was not acceptable. That's not what my post is about, is it? I don't care if most people aren't racist if most people in minority groups' lives are significantly harder than that of the majority. It's great that people are not called racist names in the street as frequently as 70 years ago. It still happens though and anyone from a minority group (which could, ironically, include women) have to work harder and be better to achieve the same. Have a look at Fabio's post. People can't raise our hands, bow our heads, kneel, stand, march or shout without someone saying that people are making too much of a fuss. What should they do to achieve equality? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples " Of these, the o ly action of a minority that had any effect at all were the Toxteth and Brixton riots which still only got us to where we are now, which is a (welcome) improvement in overt racism, although even this has sadly been reversed somewhat in recent years. Violence doesn't actually work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples Of these, the o ly action of a minority that had any effect at all were the Toxteth and Brixton riots which still only got us to where we are now, which is a (welcome) improvement in overt racism, although even this has sadly been reversed somewhat in recent years. Violence doesn't actually work." Phew, just reading down this thread did start to seem like some were advocating violence so was glad to see your last sentence of violence doesn't actually work. I do understand the point about protests being restricted in some ways though given what went on with the violence and vandalism recently it does beg the question did they bring this on themselves. It would be a shame for all those that managed to protest in a peaceful manner | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples Of these, the o ly action of a minority that had any effect at all were the Toxteth and Brixton riots which still only got us to where we are now, which is a (welcome) improvement in overt racism, although even this has sadly been reversed somewhat in recent years. Violence doesn't actually work. Phew, just reading down this thread did start to seem like some were advocating violence so was glad to see your last sentence of violence doesn't actually work. I do understand the point about protests being restricted in some ways though given what went on with the violence and vandalism recently it does beg the question did they bring this on themselves. It would be a shame for all those that managed to protest in a peaceful manner" Nothing in my original post even mentions violent action. The poi t is that the only "acceptable" protest appears to be that which is not controvetsial and is easily ignored. I don't think that it was your intention, but are you ahong that violent protest warrants a racist response? Condemnation for violence, of course. Racist I sults though? The second thread of my post is about protest in sport. Why is it unacceptable in some cases and not others? Why would our government say that it is OK to boo our national team, as a group, making a point about racism? Surely better to say that racism is not OK and booing those protesting it is not OK, even if it is allowed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples Of these, the o ly action of a minority that had any effect at all were the Toxteth and Brixton riots which still only got us to where we are now, which is a (welcome) improvement in overt racism, although even this has sadly been reversed somewhat in recent years. Violence doesn't actually work. Phew, just reading down this thread did start to seem like some were advocating violence so was glad to see your last sentence of violence doesn't actually work. I do understand the point about protests being restricted in some ways though given what went on with the violence and vandalism recently it does beg the question did they bring this on themselves. It would be a shame for all those that managed to protest in a peaceful manner Nothing in my original post even mentions violent action. The poi t is that the only "acceptable" protest appears to be that which is not controvetsial and is easily ignored. I don't think that it was your intention, but are you ahong that violent protest warrants a racist response? Condemnation for violence, of course. Racist I sults though? The second thread of my post is about protest in sport. Why is it unacceptable in some cases and not others? Why would our government say that it is OK to boo our national team, as a group, making a point about racism? Surely better to say that racism is not OK and booing those protesting it is not OK, even if it is allowed?" Maybe I was not clear for which I apologise. I was not saying you was advocating violence but reading the thread there was a creep towards advocating violence. At the time yours happened to be the last post and it was nice to see you had put that violence does not work. I was agreeing with that and the relief seeing others think the same. I have posted before that I did not agree with the booing seen recently. Also on this same thread mentioned that I understand people's concerns over changes to protests which is not fair on those that manage to do it peacefully | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You have used a lot of words here. I said that violence was not acceptable. That's not what my post is about, is it? I don't care if most people aren't racist if most people in minority groups' lives are significantly harder than that of the majority. It's great that people are not called racist names in the street as frequently as 70 years ago. It still happens though and anyone from a minority group (which could, ironically, include women) have to work harder and be better to achieve the same. Have a look at Fabio's post. People can't raise our hands, bow our heads, kneel, stand, march or shout without someone saying that people are making too much of a fuss. What should they do to achieve equality?" People can raise their hands. People can kneel, people can march. No one is going to stop them from doing it. Just because some people booed in football matches, it doesn't mean that taking the knee is banned. In a country that has 65M people, there will be people with different opinions on every matter. It's a mistake to take the views of a minority of people too seriously. Some people booed? There are plenty more who supported the movement. Worried that Rashford mural was vandalized? Look at the number of people who turned out in solidarity with Rashford. Opposition to taking the knee or any other matter of racial equality has been blown out of proportion by social media. About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You have used a lot of words here. I said that violence was not acceptable. That's not what my post is about, is it? I don't care if most people aren't racist if most people in minority groups' lives are significantly harder than that of the majority. It's great that people are not called racist names in the street as frequently as 70 years ago. It still happens though and anyone from a minority group (which could, ironically, include women) have to work harder and be better to achieve the same. Have a look at Fabio's post. People can't raise our hands, bow our heads, kneel, stand, march or shout without someone saying that people are making too much of a fuss. What should they do to achieve equality? People can raise their hands. People can kneel, people can march. No one is going to stop them from doing it. Just because some people booed in football matches, it doesn't mean that taking the knee is banned. In a country that has 65M people, there will be people with different opinions on every matter. It's a mistake to take the views of a minority of people too seriously. Some people booed? There are plenty more who supported the movement. Worried that Rashford mural was vandalized? Look at the number of people who turned out in solidarity with Rashford. Opposition to taking the knee or any other matter of racial equality has been blown out of proportion by social media. About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough." You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy' What a silly argument!! We live in a democracy now. It is not allowed to break public property just because you don't like it. If your bulb is not displayed outside, how about your doors and windows. People who don't like them can break them? Who the hell are these protesters and what rights do they have to break them? My windows are private property..your argument doesmt make any sense. Like I said in my 1st post..they disagree with a society which celebrates people who sold s@@@@ You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order." I have to disagree that what you describe is "stupidity of the highest order": what constitutes a higher order is the smug, sanctimonious attitude displayed by the morons who are happy to accept and defend it - examples above. I will not debate with that sort of fool lest I too be thought as one..( Mark Twain?) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy' What a silly argument!! We live in a democracy now. It is not allowed to break public property just because you don't like it. If your bulb is not displayed outside, how about your doors and windows. People who don't like them can break them? Who the hell are these protesters and what rights do they have to break them? My windows are private property..your argument doesmt make any sense. Like I said in my 1st post..they disagree with a society which celebrates people who sold s@@@@ You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. I have to disagree that what you describe is "stupidity of the highest order": what constitutes a higher order is the smug, sanctimonious attitude displayed by the morons who are happy to accept and defend it - examples above. I will not debate with that sort of fool lest I too be thought as one..( Mark Twain?)"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too?" I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops." So your position as a recent immigrant is that racism does not really exist in the UK? You also think that the majority white population here is equally discriminated against by the minority and the structure of society? All of the incidents of Islamophobia, large and small, are equivalent to some headline reports of "Islamic" grooming gangs? Statistically, sexual abuse is the same proportion as in the majority population. Look it up. What does that tell you, exactly? In general, we deal with discrimination because we have to. As do women. We simply have to work harder and perform better to achieve the same outcome. There's no other way. Wuoge frankly, the Asian population has done much better it certain professions because they have been profiled as such. Why are they not equally prevalent in other professions? Some form of racial profiling perhaps? You seem OK with that after being here - how long? Many people aren't. We need "only" 20-30 years for equality? Just one more generation then? Maybe. How's that worked out for women? Do you think that the progress that has been achieved came from people You're happy to be less likely to be employed with the same qualifications? You're happy with getting a lower status job for the same qualifications? You're happy with being less well paid for the same job? You're happy with being less likely to be promoted? Look it up before you ask me to. Many people aren't. You cannot earn "the same money" in India for the same job. You really believe that's true? Again, look it up. In summary, you think there is not much of a problem and if everyone keeps quiet it will all be fine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order. Actually there actions had a great deal of public support and it helped to bring a long overdue conversation on.how we 'celebrate'people like this and unless I'm mistaken, several of the plaques have now been amended. Where the hell did you get the idea that it had great public support? From social media? Surprise news for you - Most moderates do not use social media other than for seeing dog videos and memes. They do not care about any political stuff that's happening around, as long as it affects them. Democracy is a social contract. No one should go about doing stuff like that just because they think it is the right thing to do. Most people just want to live a peaceful life with family and friends within that social contract. If anyone breaks the contract, it doesn't go down well with majority of the voters. The result of these actions will be that these people will vote Tories next election, not because they like BoJo. They all know that he is a fraud and the party is corrupt. But people would rather prefer a corrupt government over a government that supports mob violence. Then you and other labour supporters will be creating threads complaining that voters are stupid/naive/racist and act like they absolutely love BoJo. Voters very well know who they are voting for and why they are doing so. These actions will always be counter productive. But most people who did that were doing it so that they can take selfies and brag about it. I don't think they even cared about what their actions will result in. So you are saying the people who were against the statues being torn down had no interest in politics? Well quite. I'm not sure how an action which results a total rethink of how the past is looked at,is counter productive, tbh? Statues were attacked all over the world ,including in America, where biden was elected,so your johnson argument is slightly flawed. Presumably you were against Saddam's statue being torn down? Biden's win had to do with Trump's handling of covid more than anything else. He was on track to win again, based on popularity ratings before covid happened. You make an assumption that plenty of people thought it was good. Here is the poll on the matter: https://mobile.twitter.com/yougov/status/1270011494080659456?lang=en 53% people support removal of the statue but only 13% support the way it was removed. It tells you so many things: 1) Majority in the country are not racists 2) A very vast majority in the country (87%) believe in democracy and its processes. They hate actions that go against democracy even if they were fine with the intentions. The movement essentially caused disappointment for 87% or people. Your idea that "I know what's good for people. I am going to enforce it on others even if breaks laws" is a curse of modern liberalism. Actions matter a lot more than intentions. Most liberals these days have their heads up their own arse and lack any maturity on political discourse. About, Saddam Hussein statue, if it is in UK, it can be taken down only by following the due process. Not by a mob. You seem to be consistently missing the point ,that it was only the actions of the protesters,which made it an issue. Do you think a few strongly worded letters to the council would have resulted in an international debate? History is littered with mon peaceful protests having an impact, and this was one of them. You are the one who is missing the point. Breaking statues did not lead to an international debate except some people obsessed with politics. For a vast majority, it was just a nuisance which probably will play a role in their voting choices. I just showed you the proof above. How many non-peaceful protests can you think of in democratic countries have achieved anything of worth? Democracy by definition is peaceful. It's only in fascist and socialist authoritarian regimes that you need to use violence to get things done. I repeat it for you. Democracy is a social contract that works based on peaceful means. If you break the contract, others will also break it. If you are the kind of person who feels that violence is justified in a democracy because it's in favour of a cause you support, I am sorry. I can't help you with your narrow mindedness. As long as liberals think that violence is justified and make their voices loudly heard about it, they will be looked down upon by the rest of the population. All your threads about BoJo being a liar and Tories being corrupt are not going to help. People will still vote for them. Off the top of my head Suffragettes The poll tax riots The inner city riots of the 80s Mandela You could argue tearing down the Berlin wall wasmt peaceful The violence in northern ireland eventually saw the 2 sides sitting down. I'm sure there are plenty of colonial examples Of these, the o ly action of a minority that had any effect at all were the Toxteth and Brixton riots which still only got us to where we are now, which is a (welcome) improvement in overt racism, although even this has sadly been reversed somewhat in recent years. Violence doesn't actually work." I dont know about the others but the toxteth was a mixture of factors, massive structural unemployment and brutal institutional racism. While violence may not be the answer ,if a 19 year old lad with no propspects who had just been nicked and battered for being a n word,had just have written to the local paper,I'm sure the issue would have been resolved. I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops." Are you saying racism doesmt exist here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops." You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK "Nice patronising pat on the head for behaving yourself and not making a fuss. Just as the original post described. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK
Nice patronising pat on the head for behaving yourself and not making a fuss.
Just as the original post described." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK
Nice patronising pat on the head for behaving yourself and not making a fuss.
Just as the original post described."Dont be jealous of other people's contentment. Go find your own | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK
Nice patronising pat on the head for behaving yourself and not making a fuss.
Just as the original post described.
Dont be jealous of other people's contentment. Go find your own "There's an irony there in your attempt to patronise me. I am content. I've had it relatively easy, but I can empathise with those who have it much harder. Any comment on the original post?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK "Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thing of if youve never been hit by a bus how can you know what its like to be hit by a bus is idiotic! youve never been fat so dont tell me how to lose weight, youve never had a drink problem and my favourite, used by smack heads, you cant tell someone about drugs unless youve been a smack head lol.... trust me you can be discriminated against in a major way for plenty of things.... but just incase some people dont know, asians in britain on average earn more than whites in britain... clear racism there then! " Actually, it is quite hard to empathise with everything that you do being a bit more of a fight and knowing that you have to work harder to achieve the same thing. Receiving overt or implicit racism ocassionally or regularly. Those who live it normalise it, because otherwise they would be angry every day at the unfairness. Instead, most just get on. Why should they have to though? You could try and empathise. That may change your mind. I don't think that you have any interest in doing so though. It's easier to determinedly minimise the matter and suggest that it's not a problem. Since this year those of Chinese and Indian ethnicity have earned more on average. Not before. A higher proportion are in higher skilled and better paid professions than the population as a whole. They still earn less than white colleagues with similar qualifications and experience. Other groups continue to earn less. That includes other Asians. I guess people use the statistics that are helpful... The thread remains about how the majority tells minority groups (including women it seems) how they should, or should not feel and protest inequality. Any thoughts on that? Is too much of a fuss being made? Minority groups should just keep the noise down? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Since this year those of Chinese and Indian ethnicity have earned more on average. Not before. A higher proportion are in higher skilled and better paid professions than the population as a whole. They still earn less than white colleagues with similar qualifications and experience. Other groups continue to earn less. That includes other Asians. I guess people use the statistics that are helpful... " That ONS survey was conducted in 2019: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2019 Even after adjusting for occupation and educational qualification, Indians born in the UK make more money than White British. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thing of if youve never been hit by a bus how can you know what its like to be hit by a bus is idiotic! youve never been fat so dont tell me how to lose weight, youve never had a drink problem and my favourite, used by smack heads, you cant tell someone about drugs unless youve been a smack head lol.... trust me you can be discriminated against in a major way for plenty of things.... but just incase some people dont know, asians in britain on average earn more than whites in britain... clear racism there then! Actually, it is quite hard to empathise with everything that you do being a bit more of a fight and knowing that you have to work harder to achieve the same thing. Receiving overt or implicit racism ocassionally or regularly. Those who live it normalise it, because otherwise they would be angry every day at the unfairness. Instead, most just get on. Why should they have to though? You could try and empathise. That may change your mind. I don't think that you have any interest in doing so though. It's easier to determinedly minimise the matter and suggest that it's not a problem. Since this year those of Chinese and Indian ethnicity have earned more on average. Not before. A higher proportion are in higher skilled and better paid professions than the population as a whole. They still earn less than white colleagues with similar qualifications and experience. Other groups continue to earn less. That includes other Asians. I guess people use the statistics that are helpful... The thread remains about how the majority tells minority groups (including women it seems) how they should, or should not feel and protest inequality. Any thoughts on that? Is too much of a fuss being made? Minority groups should just keep the noise down? " height, skin colour, disability, unseen disability especially...... theres plenty of discrimination... its you who seems to think your colour is such a problem, a problem so much bigger than anyone elses problem. You post again and again on the subject! as a man im short put on a dress its an advantage! but take shit for wearing a dress... sucking cock... oh so many things to whine about! lol Anyone anywhere in the world, once you are the minority for whatever reason there will be those that point. You might as well ask for the rain to stop and i bet you do it to! So get off your high horse! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK
Nice patronising pat on the head for behaving yourself and not making a fuss.
Just as the original post described."Just curious. What makes you call it patronising? Is it because he is white and I am not? Would you have used the same word if someone of my own race lauded me for being optimistic? It helps if you stop seeing everything with the race glasses on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Racists always try to tear down anti-racism protests no matter what they are. They also use every excuse in the book to justify their continual attacks and belittlements on anti-racist protests. If it wasn't taking the knee, it would be something else. Fuck em. I hope footballers keep taking the knee. At best the people booing them are unknowingly aiding racism. At worst they're actively supporting it. So they're either just really fucking stupid, or really fucking stupid and nasty." You should have been around last week | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Since this year those of Chinese and Indian ethnicity have earned more on average. Not before. A higher proportion are in higher skilled and better paid professions than the population as a whole. They still earn less than white colleagues with similar qualifications and experience. Other groups continue to earn less. That includes other Asians. I guess people use the statistics that are helpful... That ONS survey was conducted in 2019: https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsingreatbritain/2019 Even after adjusting for occupation and educational qualification, Indians born in the UK make more money than White British. " Well that's a super-important detail. That is the latest data. You think that 2020 and 2021 are at all relevant? You know that their is no legal requirement to report ethnic pay gap data, just as there was none to confirm the gender pay gap until very recently. The reality has proven to be worse than previously calculated. The ONS does not think that its data is that good: *9.Data sources and quality Data sources Though this analysis makes use of the Annual Population Survey (APS) it should be noted that the primary source of data for earnings analysis in the UK is the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE). As a business survey, ASHE collects detailed information on the composition and distribution of earnings among employees, however, as a business survey, it collects only a limited range of personal characteristics regarding individual employees. This limits its usefulness in analysing earnings, for instance, by education and/or by different protected characteristics including ethnicity and disability. As a result, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) (a quarterly version of the APS) is still heavily used as a source of data on earnings. Though it is accepted that the accuracy and detail of earnings information captured by the LFS falls short of that obtained by ASHE, the greater range of personal and household characteristics broaden its potential uses. However, one drawback of earnings analysis on the LFS is that the achieved sample is relatively small. This is because earnings questions are asked only to employees and only in 40% of the interviews carried out in each quarter. Furthermore, earnings questions on the LFS are known to have poor response rates. The achieved sample for the LFS earnings questions is usually around 9,000, compared with approximately 150,000 respondents on ASHE. This limited sample size then restricts the extent to which you can perform multivariate analysis of earnings on the LFS, particularly where the variables of interest have many categories." The" adjustment" doesn't te you in this data set which factor is dominant does it? It does not actually tell you that they earn more with the same qualifications. The fact that there are a higher proportion of Indian doctors, dentists, lawyers and acxkuntans earning less than their white counterparts will not be visible, right? Do only Indian and Chinese ethnicities matter? Does only money matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is drawing attention to the previous existence of former colonialists quite the same thing as 'celebrating' them? I doubt they have been celebrated recently in the way they might have been when the statues were erected. Since then they have existed as reminders and could be viewed from many perspectives. For those of an enquiring nature the statues are/were at least providing some thought provocation about how things once were and how we have moved on since." I agree that these things should be left in place, but perhaps opposite a new statue putting it in context or, at least, additional information added to the original. What is your view on my initial post about being told what acceptable protest is by the dominant majority? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" About achieving equality, you just have to look at workforce in various sectors to see the progress we have made. Education is clearly the way to go and it is already working well. Just continuing what we are doing good is good enough. You are not quite getting the point. I didn't say that protest is not allowed, although the law is being changed to make it harder to do so. I said that government and a large part of the media says that these, peaceful, forms of protest are too disruptive and upsetting. Equality feels like oppression to those with power. You are a relatively recent immigrant aren't you? You didn't grow up as a minority. So another 70 years? How are women doing with equality over the entire history of humanity? Should they just keep it going at the same pace too? I have plenty of friends from Asian community who have grown up here. I have friends whose kids are growing up here. None of them ever complained that racism is a big problem. Indian IT sector is in a boom and these are people who can earn the same money in India. Still they prefer to stay here. They won't, if they are racially marginalised. I have personally faced racial discrimination in rest of Europe in just small holiday trips, but never in the UK in all the time I have lived here. I think no one has any problem with equality in opportunities. It's only when people try to enforce equality in outcome, people start finding it unreasonable. If you are looking at football players, healthcare sector and IT sector, people from specific minority communities have a higher representation than white people. Same with gender. Most of this boils down to specific cultural traits than intentional discrimination. From both the groups, I see anecdotal evidences of discrimination. For every story of black kid getting beaten up, there is also story of white kid getting beaten up. Whenever someone tells a story to prove Islamophobia in the UK, another one talks about the grooming gangs that were racially abusive towards white women. My point is these are just anecdotal stories. Social media and news media tend to make problems look bigger than they actually are. Most of the people in the society have progressed and gotten over it. We don't need another 70 years. 20/30 years tops. You're exactly correct in everything you have said so far. With the positive attitude you have you will enjoy great success in this country. You deserve every bit of it. Don't let negative people divide us and I wish you every success in your future in the UK
Nice patronising pat on the head for behaving yourself and not making a fuss.
Just as the original post described.
Just curious. What makes you call it patronising? Is it because he is white and I am not? Would you have used the same word if someone of my own race lauded me for being optimistic?
It helps if you stop seeing everything with the race glasses on."I don't see "everything" with race glasses on. I am optimistic. I am also realistic. My upbringing has been very privileged, but over 46 years here I have had to face some very unpleasant situations. Those of childhood are particularly formative. What is your experience growing up? In India? You have just proven that not only white people can be patronising in this context | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the whole thing of if youve never been hit by a bus how can you know what its like to be hit by a bus is idiotic! youve never been fat so dont tell me how to lose weight, youve never had a drink problem and my favourite, used by smack heads, you cant tell someone about drugs unless youve been a smack head lol.... trust me you can be discriminated against in a major way for plenty of things.... but just incase some people dont know, asians in britain on average earn more than whites in britain... clear racism there then! Actually, it is quite hard to empathise with everything that you do being a bit more of a fight and knowing that you have to work harder to achieve the same thing. Receiving overt or implicit racism ocassionally or regularly. Those who live it normalise it, because otherwise they would be angry every day at the unfairness. Instead, most just get on. Why should they have to though? You could try and empathise. That may change your mind. I don't think that you have any interest in doing so though. It's easier to determinedly minimise the matter and suggest that it's not a problem. Since this year those of Chinese and Indian ethnicity have earned more on average. Not before. A higher proportion are in higher skilled and better paid professions than the population as a whole. They still earn less than white colleagues with similar qualifications and experience. Other groups continue to earn less. That includes other Asians. I guess people use the statistics that are helpful... The thread remains about how the majority tells minority groups (including women it seems) how they should, or should not feel and protest inequality. Any thoughts on that? Is too much of a fuss being made? Minority groups should just keep the noise down? height, skin colour, disability, unseen disability especially...... theres plenty of discrimination... its you who seems to think your colour is such a problem, a problem so much bigger than anyone elses problem. You post again and again on the subject! as a man im short put on a dress its an advantage! but take shit for wearing a dress... sucking cock... oh so many things to whine about! lol Anyone anywhere in the world, once you are the minority for whatever reason there will be those that point. You might as well ask for the rain to stop and i bet you do it to! So get off your high horse!" You also seem to be telling me what I should feel and think. Why are you so upset by me posting on this topic that you feel that you need to make this personal? My colour is not a particular "problem" for me. It is certainly a very negative factor in many people's lives. Something that arbitrarily prevents them from achieving their potential. Is that OK? What's this post about? Have you taken the time to read what I actually wrote? Does racism exist and does the majority ha e the right to dictate how it should be protested? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"trouble is some people want to label every action as racist, which just makes them stupid drum bangers! ive been called a pa*ki by white people and ive also had black people say, are you trying to be black? but never been to Pakistan and neither have my parents... most people think im a mix.... not brown enough or white enough... a touch of the tar brush people said, but times have changed... hmmm, i think accusing people of being racist is an insult and how you use it should be considered and not just thrown around. " Who has accused whom of being racist? Anyone can be. Our current Home Secretary at least proves quite a significant lack of empathy for the daughter of immigrants. Is racism or any other form of prejudice OK? Should the status quo remain and nothing done? Should change happen at a convenient pace for the majority? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't see "everything" with race glasses on. I am optimistic. I am also realistic. My upbringing has been very privileged, but over 46 years here I have had to face some very unpleasant situations. Those of childhood are particularly formative. What is your experience growing up? In India? You have just proven that not only white people can be patronising in this context "So anyone who doesn't say yes to whatever you say is patronising? This is the kind of attitude that makes people that has made the self-proclaimed liberals these days a big laughing stock. My experience in India? There are numerous castes. The government has divided them into 3 tiers and I belong to middle tier. Does caste based discrimination still exist? Of course it does. I have faced it once in myself from a professor in my college. That's one experience I had in my lifetime. But here are the results of positive discrimination and identity politics in India: 1) India has quota system in universities and government jobs. Guys who have scored much lesser marks get into good universities even though their parents are rich while a guy from a poor household scoring much better marks doesn't get it simply because he belongs to forward caste. 2) Government offices are poorly run. There are civil servants who would actually swear at people. You can't get any action taken against them because the system protects them. 3) I have seen a case of a student in my university getting m*lested by a professor from a lower tier caste. Punishment - He was transferred to another government university. Reason - He had backing from a left wing party who said that if they fire him, they will make it a caste problem while dragging the girl's name to the press. 4) For most people in upper caste, their only goal is to leave the country because they don't want their children to go through the problems they did. Though it's a different country, I can see clear parallels between the identity politics being played in India and the UK. Most voters in both countries don't like who they vote for (Modi/BoJo) but still do it simply because the opposite party is unelectable. But the woke liberals in both countries are busy patronising the voters calling them "stupid, naive, casteist/racist, falling for right wing lies" when the ground truth is much different than what they think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't see "everything" with race glasses on. I am optimistic. I am also realistic. My upbringing has been very privileged, but over 46 years here I have had to face some very unpleasant situations. Those of childhood are particularly formative. What is your experience growing up? In India? You have just proven that not only white people can be patronising in this context
So anyone who doesn't say yes to whatever you say is patronising? This is the kind of attitude that makes people that has made the self-proclaimed liberals these days a big laughing stock.
My experience in India? There are numerous castes. The government has divided them into 3 tiers and I belong to middle tier.
Does caste based discrimination still exist? Of course it does. I have faced it once in myself from a professor in my college. That's one experience I had in my lifetime.
But here are the results of positive discrimination and identity politics in India:
1) India has quota system in universities and government jobs. Guys who have scored much lesser marks get into good universities even though their parents are rich while a guy from a poor household scoring much better marks doesn't get it simply because he belongs to forward caste.
2) Government offices are poorly run. There are civil servants who would actually swear at people. You can't get any action taken against them because the system protects them.
3) I have seen a case of a student in my university getting m*lested by a professor from a lower tier caste. Punishment - He was transferred to another government university. Reason - He had backing from a left wing party who said that if they fire him, they will make it a caste problem while dragging the girl's name to the press.
4) For most people in upper caste, their only goal is to leave the country because they don't want their children to go through the problems they did.
Though it's a different country, I can see clear parallels between the identity politics being played in India and the UK. Most voters in both countries don't like who they vote for (Modi/BoJo) but still do it simply because the opposite party is unelectable.
But the woke liberals in both countries are busy patronising the voters calling them "stupid, naive, casteist/racist, falling for right wing lies" when the ground truth is much different than what they think. "No. How you disagree with others can be patronising. Telling them what their thought processes might be when they make a point and telling what they should be thinking and how they should be acting is patronising. Ot seems that you ha e come from a relatively privileged background too from a group that has some status and power. It was not a significant handicap in your life. Is that a fair summary? However, there are groups that are "causing trouble" in Indian society by also demanding equal treatment. As a consequence "most" higher status individuals want to leave. Is that a fair summary? You do not think that there is much, if any racism in the UK. Nobody should be protesting because in 20-30 years we will all be equal automatically. Is that a fair summary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No. How you disagree with others can be patronising. Telling them what their thought processes might be when they make a point and telling what they should be thinking and how they should be acting is patronising. Ot seems that you ha e come from a relatively privileged background too from a group that has some status and power. It was not a significant handicap in your life. Is that a fair summary? However, there are groups that are "causing trouble" in Indian society by also demanding equal treatment. As a consequence "most" higher status individuals want to leave. Is that a fair summary? You do not think that there is much, if any racism in the UK. Nobody should be protesting because in 20-30 years we will all be equal automatically. Is that a fair summary?" I disagree based on my own experiences. Which part of it was patronising? Aren't all arguments basically one person telling the other person what they should think and how they should act? Isn't that definition of a debate? When did that become patronising? If that's patronising, your original post is also patronising. You are just doing it to a different set of people. My group doesn't have any status or power. My parents were from villages who struggled a lot in their childhood. Their hardwork gave me a lower middle childhood. I managed to do well academically and reach upper middle class status. The groups in India did not ask for equal treatment. Equal treatment is equality in opportunities. They demanded for equality in outcome. They had reservation system everywhere. That didn't really turn out well. Public sector is fucked up. Even people from the lower caste hate to use it. "High status individuals" is not the right term. People born in families which used to be upper caste 70 years back but can either be rich or poor in the current time are leaving the country. And who said no one should protest? Protesting is fine. Keep protesting. But always remember that there will be numerous opinions on the matter in a sufficiently large society. Even people who support racial equality can have arguments against certain activities that the movement does. Your job is to argue with everyone using facts. "You don't have the right to argue about it because your skin colour is not X" is not a rational argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"had a Chinese friend who used to say it doesnt matter if your a black twat a white twat or a yellow twat you are still a fucking twat lol some people like an excuse for not achieving what they feel they should have, i could have been a contender.... lol " Still completely ignoring the purpose of the thread. Up to you I guess | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"had a Chinese friend who used to say it doesnt matter if your a black twat a white twat or a yellow twat you are still a fucking twat lol some people like an excuse for not achieving what they feel they should have, i could have been a contender.... lol Still completely ignoring the purpose of the thread. Up to you I guess "seems the purpose of all your threads are race propaganda, reciting facts of your choosing and ignoring others. why do people travel through greece, italy france germany get in a tiny rubber boat and cross the channel to come to a place that is so terrible? answer... it isnt! fact is the uk is right up there regards open attitudes and fairness. You can't expect the majority to constantly pander to the minority otherwise the radio would only be allowed to play country and western music lol India wasnt to keen on having a load of white boys run the place was it, kicked them out, but you seem to be suggesting a role reversal for uk? it will most likely happen in time as a matter of course. Other countries thailand india etc dont even allow foreigners to buy land in their country. Personally i have suffered prejudice but often its because they are a stupid twat rather than a racist twat, where you draw that line is open for debate. But fact still remains plenty of asians are doing very well thank you very much. where people with a disability suffer far more under the uk system regards wealth and life expectancy etc etc and regards education, young white boys are getting the shit end of the stick. I think your constant carping on about your colour and race is tiresome, learn to move on and not be defined by it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"had a Chinese friend who used to say it doesnt matter if your a black twat a white twat or a yellow twat you are still a fucking twat lol some people like an excuse for not achieving what they feel they should have, i could have been a contender.... lol Still completely ignoring the purpose of the thread. Up to you I guess
seems the purpose of all your threads are race propaganda, reciting facts of your choosing and ignoring others.
why do people travel through greece, italy france germany get in a tiny rubber boat and cross the channel to come to a place that is so terrible? answer... it isnt!
fact is the uk is right up there regards open attitudes and fairness. You can't expect the majority to constantly pander to the minority otherwise the radio would only be allowed to play country and western music lol India wasnt to keen on having a load of white boys run the place was it, kicked them out, but you seem to be suggesting a role reversal for uk? it will most likely happen in time as a matter of course. Other countries thailand india etc dont even allow foreigners to buy land in their country.
Personally i have suffered prejudice but often its because they are a stupid twat rather than a racist twat, where you draw that line is open for debate. But fact still remains plenty of asians are doing very well thank you very much. where people with a disability suffer far more under the uk system regards wealth and life expectancy etc etc and regards education, young white boys are getting the shit end of the stick.
I think your constant carping on about your colour and race is tiresome, learn to move on and not be defined by it."Interesting reaction. You seem to have missed the purpose yet again though. What facts am I "ignoring" about the topic of this thread which, incidentally, included parody and satire about how the majority tells minorities how to act? I'm British. I've never said that I disliked the country. I never said that it is intolerant on the whole. There are problems. Some serious that can and should be improved. If you care about something you improve it and make it the best that it can be don't you, rather than resting on former glories and successes. Empires, World Wars and a World Cup, for instance. I'd like all people everywhere to behave better, but the most important one is one in which I live,strangely enough and I will hold that to a higher standard as it starts from a better position. "Race propoganda"? What "propoganda"? Racism isn't problem so don't mention it? That is the poi t of the thread, so I guess this is as close to a direct answer as is likely. "Constant carping"? How many posts in how long? Have you read all of my threads or do specific topics draw your attention? Why does it bother you so much? Do threads about sexism or homopbobja upset you as much? What about social depravation? Does discussion about those topics also upset you or is it just ethnicity? So what if "plenty of Asians are doing very well" if plenty are not for no reason than their skin colour? Improving the education of poor white boys or those with physical or mental disabilities does not preclude improving ethnic or gender equality. Why shouldn't it all be improved? It is regrettable that you have suffered from racial prejudice. If that is not something worth changing sooner rather than later then that is your choice. If you are alright with other children and adults patiently living through the same experiences without complaint because in that way improvements will automatically accrue in some way, then fine. That's your view. I disagree, as do others. When or where have I "carped on" about my colour or race? When have I even said that I've had a hard time of it? Again, can you address the thread directly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No. How you disagree with others can be patronising. Telling them what their thought processes might be when they make a point and telling what they should be thinking and how they should be acting is patronising. Ot seems that you ha e come from a relatively privileged background too from a group that has some status and power. It was not a significant handicap in your life. Is that a fair summary? However, there are groups that are "causing trouble" in Indian society by also demanding equal treatment. As a consequence "most" higher status individuals want to leave. Is that a fair summary? You do not think that there is much, if any racism in the UK. Nobody should be protesting because in 20-30 years we will all be equal automatically. Is that a fair summary? I disagree based on my own experiences. Which part of it was patronising? Aren't all arguments basically one person telling the other person what they should think and how they should act? Isn't that definition of a debate? When did that become patronising? If that's patronising, your original post is also patronising. You are just doing it to a different set of people. My group doesn't have any status or power. My parents were from villages who struggled a lot in their childhood. Their hardwork gave me a lower middle childhood. I managed to do well academically and reach upper middle class status. The groups in India did not ask for equal treatment. Equal treatment is equality in opportunities. They demanded for equality in outcome. They had reservation system everywhere. That didn't really turn out well. Public sector is fucked up. Even people from the lower caste hate to use it. "High status individuals" is not the right term. People born in families which used to be upper caste 70 years back but can either be rich or poor in the current time are leaving the country. And who said no one should protest? Protesting is fine. Keep protesting. But always remember that there will be numerous opinions on the matter in a sufficiently large society. Even people who support racial equality can have arguments against certain activities that the movement does. Your job is to argue with everyone using facts. "You don't have the right to argue about it because your skin colour is not X" is not a rational argument. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't see "everything" with race glasses on. I am optimistic. I am also realistic. My upbringing has been very privileged, but over 46 years here I have had to face some very unpleasant situations. Those of childhood are particularly formative. What is your experience growing up? In India? You have just proven that not only white people can be patronising in this context
So anyone who doesn't say yes to whatever you say is patronising? This is the kind of attitude that makes people that has made the self-proclaimed liberals these days a big laughing stock.
My experience in India? There are numerous castes. The government has divided them into 3 tiers and I belong to middle tier.
Does caste based discrimination still exist? Of course it does. I have faced it once in myself from a professor in my college. That's one experience I had in my lifetime.
But here are the results of positive discrimination and identity politics in India:
1) India has quota system in universities and government jobs. Guys who have scored much lesser marks get into good universities even though their parents are rich while a guy from a poor household scoring much better marks doesn't get it simply because he belongs to forward caste.
2) Government offices are poorly run. There are civil servants who would actually swear at people. You can't get any action taken against them because the system protects them.
3) I have seen a case of a student in my university getting m*lested by a professor from a lower tier caste. Punishment - He was transferred to another government university. Reason - He had backing from a left wing party who said that if they fire him, they will make it a caste problem while dragging the girl's name to the press.
4) For most people in upper caste, their only goal is to leave the country because they don't want their children to go through the problems they did.
Though it's a different country, I can see clear parallels between the identity politics being played in India and the UK. Most voters in both countries don't like who they vote for (Modi/BoJo) but still do it simply because the opposite party is unelectable.
But the woke liberals in both countries are busy patronising the voters calling them "stupid, naive, casteist/racist, falling for right wing lies" when the ground truth is much different than what they think. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No. How you disagree with others can be patronising. Telling them what their thought processes might be when they make a point and telling what they should be thinking and how they should be acting is patronising. Ot seems that you ha e come from a relatively privileged background too from a group that has some status and power. It was not a significant handicap in your life. Is that a fair summary? However, there are groups that are "causing trouble" in Indian society by also demanding equal treatment. As a consequence "most" higher status individuals want to leave. Is that a fair summary? You do not think that there is much, if any racism in the UK. Nobody should be protesting because in 20-30 years we will all be equal automatically. Is that a fair summary? I disagree based on my own experiences. Which part of it was patronising? Aren't all arguments basically one person telling the other person what they should think and how they should act? Isn't that definition of a debate? When did that become patronising? If that's patronising, your original post is also patronising. You are just doing it to a different set of people. My group doesn't have any status or power. My parents were from villages who struggled a lot in their childhood. Their hardwork gave me a lower middle childhood. I managed to do well academically and reach upper middle class status. The groups in India did not ask for equal treatment. Equal treatment is equality in opportunities. They demanded for equality in outcome. They had reservation system everywhere. That didn't really turn out well. Public sector is fucked up. Even people from the lower caste hate to use it. "High status individuals" is not the right term. People born in families which used to be upper caste 70 years back but can either be rich or poor in the current time are leaving the country. And who said no one should protest? Protesting is fine. Keep protesting. But always remember that there will be numerous opinions on the matter in a sufficiently large society. Even people who support racial equality can have arguments against certain activities that the movement does. Your job is to argue with everyone using facts. "You don't have the right to argue about it because your skin colour is not X" is not a rational argument. " So you suffered no disadvantage coming from the majority ethnicity and religion and a middle class upbringing and caste? Your saying that the Indian civil service is slow and corrupt because u deserving and unqualified "low caste" people have been employed? Why weren't qualified, educated "low caste" people get these jobs? Were there none? Why is that? Is there equality of opportunity? You said that peoe should not protest because in 20-30 years it will all be fine as long as you don't draw attention to it. That's how you addressed my initial post. The rest of your long articles have been about other matters. My "job" is not to argue with anyone. I'm not arguing with you. I am trying, and failing, to see how someone could argue that I equalities should not have attention drawn to them and put right as quickly as possible. I am trying, and failing, to see how these thi ga are automatically fixed by not mentioning them. Could you, perhaps, answer those points of confusion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you suffered no disadvantage coming from the majority ethnicity and religion and a middle class upbringing and caste? Your saying that the Indian civil service is slow and corrupt because u deserving and unqualified "low caste" people have been employed? Why weren't qualified, educated "low caste" people get these jobs? Were there none? Why is that? Is there equality of opportunity? You said that peoe should not protest because in 20-30 years it will all be fine as long as you don't draw attention to it. That's how you addressed my initial post. The rest of your long articles have been about other matters. My "job" is not to argue with anyone. I'm not arguing with you. I am trying, and failing, to see how someone could argue that I equalities should not have attention drawn to them and put right as quickly as possible. I am trying, and failing, to see how these thi ga are automatically fixed by not mentioning them. Could you, perhaps, answer those points of confusion?" I have mentioned above that I have been discriminated based on caste once in my lifetime. But I have the bigger perspective and I am not going to break my mind over one incident. I have seen positive discrimination to have a relatively worse effect. Let me explain how the quota system works. It varies from state to state. But typically around 40% of seats are allocated to open competition. So anyone can compete for these seats. The deserving candidates from lower caste already get in through open competition. The remaining 60% are shared by the lower and middle caste people. The upper caste people have to fight only for the open competition seats. When you have 60% of people being chosen based on birth and not based on merit, the system is definitely going to be fucked up. My first post in the thread was about how the movement lost its name as soon as it started indulging in breaking public property. I don't oppose the protests. I am not going to be a part of the protests either. But, I am interested in hearing arguments from both sides on the issue. I find any argument on the lines of "you can't question our statements because your skin colour is different" to be irrational. There are processes set in place already to handle racial equality. There is an education system that works on getting kids to have an open mind and accept people from different backgrounds. Most industries have taken steps to ensure that people are not discriminated. The fact that Asians born in the UK earn higher pay even when adjusted to education and occupation proves that it worked well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So you suffered no disadvantage coming from the majority ethnicity and religion and a middle class upbringing and caste? Your saying that the Indian civil service is slow and corrupt because u deserving and unqualified "low caste" people have been employed? Why weren't qualified, educated "low caste" people get these jobs? Were there none? Why is that? Is there equality of opportunity? You said that peoe should not protest because in 20-30 years it will all be fine as long as you don't draw attention to it. That's how you addressed my initial post. The rest of your long articles have been about other matters. My "job" is not to argue with anyone. I'm not arguing with you. I am trying, and failing, to see how someone could argue that I equalities should not have attention drawn to them and put right as quickly as possible. I am trying, and failing, to see how these thi ga are automatically fixed by not mentioning them. Could you, perhaps, answer those points of confusion? I have mentioned above that I have been discriminated based on caste once in my lifetime. But I have the bigger perspective and I am not going to break my mind over one incident. I have seen positive discrimination to have a relatively worse effect. Let me explain how the quota system works. It varies from state to state. But typically around 40% of seats are allocated to open competition. So anyone can compete for these seats. The deserving candidates from lower caste already get in through open competition. The remaining 60% are shared by the lower and middle caste people. The upper caste people have to fight only for the open competition seats. When you have 60% of people being chosen based on birth and not based on merit, the system is definitely going to be fucked up. My first post in the thread was about how the movement lost its name as soon as it started indulging in breaking public property. I don't oppose the protests. I am not going to be a part of the protests either. But, I am interested in hearing arguments from both sides on the issue. I find any argument on the lines of "you can't question our statements because your skin colour is different" to be irrational. There are processes set in place already to handle racial equality. There is an education system that works on getting kids to have an open mind and accept people from different backgrounds. Most industries have taken steps to ensure that people are not discriminated. The fact that Asians born in the UK earn higher pay even when adjusted to education and occupation proves that it worked well." . You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yes. Your "job" is not to argue with anyone. If you try to send a political message, others' "job" is not to hear it and shut up. They will put forward their point of view. You could argue rationally with them. If you can't, they won't take your message seriously. Then don't feel bad about people not taking the message seriously." Again, patronising. What have I written that is irrational? When have I told anyone to "shut up"? Is there racism (and other descrimination)? Should those enduring it shut-up and wait for things to improve? Have things got to this point because everyone kept quiet? Should the majority define how those suffering from discrimination should react to it? Direct questions, so you can give direct answers. Yes/No will be clear without a change of subject. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result." I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yes. Your "job" is not to argue with anyone. If you try to send a political message, others' "job" is not to hear it and shut up. They will put forward their point of view. You could argue rationally with them. If you can't, they won't take your message seriously. Then don't feel bad about people not taking the message seriously. Again, patronising. What have I written that is irrational? When have I told anyone to "shut up"? Is there racism (and other descrimination)? Should those enduring it shut-up and wait for things to improve? Have things got to this point because everyone kept quiet? Should the majority define how those suffering from discrimination should react to it? Direct questions, so you can give direct answers. Yes/No will be clear without a change of subject." Please check the meaning of patronising in dictionary before using it everywhere. Your original post consists off a bunch of stuff people have said against the need for protests. I agree with some arguments against their views. Racism still exists and protests are used to point it out. That's a valid argument. There is a place for these protests for sure. But arguments like "how can someone from majority population understand what someone from a minority goes through?" is not a rational. If that's the case, you should also stop using the words "White privilege". How can you ever understand what a white person goes through? Also, no one can ever understand what another person goes through. So no one should advice others on how to do things? Most if their points about Olympic boycotts and overnight changes are subjective matters which needs open discussion. They are also citizens in the country and they have the right to get involved in these matters. As with your most other posts on the forum, you are asking a yes/no question on a complicated subject to get a favourable answer. Your question: "Should the majority define how those suffering from discrimination should react to it?" The point is no is defining. The majority is giving an opinion on this matter. They are trying to have an open debate. They have every right to do that because they live here and any change will affect them too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong." The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country?" When someone makes a statement like "discrimination happens everyday to me", rest of the world will not accept it immediately. You have to prove it. On the caste subject, when one person scores 90 and another scores 80, the one who scored 90 should get the job. Instead, the one who scored 80 gets the job even though he is richer than the one who scored 90. If you think that's fair, I don't have anything to argue about it. The person who got the job by scoring just 80 is undeserving. People do get lazy because of quotas. Why work too hard to score 90 when a 70 can get you through? Are you saying a woman who gets into a problem with her husband, misuses the anti-dowry law to put her husband and his parents in jail eventually resulting in that family's suicide is fair game because women were discriminated badly in the past? Check out the documentary "martyrs of marriage" made by an Indian female lawyer who found out the stupidity of that law. Answer to historic discrimination is not more discrimination to compensate for it. You said that you never claimed that Britain is systematically racist then you go on to complain about pay gap. Anyway, I understand maths and I very well know what regression analysis means. You are the one who seems to use half bakes internet knowledge to make wrong claims. The calculations are there for the world to see. On ethnicity and fields where they shine, it has a lot more to do with the cultural dynamics than where they are "expected to excel at". Majority of Indians in India and Chinese in China also have the same characteristics. Most people try to get into engineering and medicine than into arts and sports. Why do you think India as a country with such a huge population struggles to win a single gold in Olympics? Indian parents influence their children's minds right from the beginning. They try their best to direct them into professional courses rather than pursuing arts and sports. Most people don't care about arts and sports. Again, remove your "oppressor vs oppressed" glasses and you will get a more realistic view of the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country? When someone makes a statement like "discrimination happens everyday to me", rest of the world will not accept it immediately. You have to prove it. On the caste subject, when one person scores 90 and another scores 80, the one who scored 90 should get the job. Instead, the one who scored 80 gets the job even though he is richer than the one who scored 90. If you think that's fair, I don't have anything to argue about it. The person who got the job by scoring just 80 is undeserving. People do get lazy because of quotas. Why work too hard to score 90 when a 70 can get you through? Are you saying a woman who gets into a problem with her husband, misuses the anti-dowry law to put her husband and his parents in jail eventually resulting in that family's suicide is fair game because women were discriminated badly in the past? Check out the documentary "martyrs of marriage" made by an Indian female lawyer who found out the stupidity of that law. Answer to historic discrimination is not more discrimination to compensate for it. You said that you never claimed that Britain is systematically racist then you go on to complain about pay gap. Anyway, I understand maths and I very well know what regression analysis means. You are the one who seems to use half bakes internet knowledge to make wrong claims. The calculations are there for the world to see. On ethnicity and fields where they shine, it has a lot more to do with the cultural dynamics than where they are "expected to excel at". Majority of Indians in India and Chinese in China also have the same characteristics. Most people try to get into engineering and medicine than into arts and sports. Why do you think India as a country with such a huge population struggles to win a single gold in Olympics? Indian parents influence their children's minds right from the beginning. They try their best to direct them into professional courses rather than pursuing arts and sports. Most people don't care about arts and sports. Again, remove your "oppressor vs oppressed" glasses and you will get a more realistic view of the world." I did not state that "descrimination happens everyday to me". I did not bring up the pay gap either. I responded. Read. You're making something up to suit the argument that you want to have, again. If you really believe that there are people in this country really do not suffer from direct or I direct desrimination at some level on an almost daily basis, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling with this conversation. Look up Gov.uk Ethnicity facts and figures Then have a think about what this means to people on a daily basis and don't tell me that the Asian Indian group, which you belong to, proves that there is no problem when others are in dire straits. You also appear to have brought an entire set of views with you about caste and sex which inform your other opinions. Quite frankly, I struggle with there tone and ha e no idea how to react with them except with some level of shock. "Most people" do not care about arts and sports? I'll leave that one too. I have never said anything even remotely resemjng a narrative of "oppressor and oppressed". You are once again making up an argument to suit your own ideas. What's the subject of the thread? How have you addressed it with anything that you have written? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And yes. Your "job" is not to argue with anyone. If you try to send a political message, others' "job" is not to hear it and shut up. They will put forward their point of view. You could argue rationally with them. If you can't, they won't take your message seriously. Then don't feel bad about people not taking the message seriously. Again, patronising. What have I written that is irrational? When have I told anyone to "shut up"? Is there racism (and other descrimination)? Should those enduring it shut-up and wait for things to improve? Have things got to this point because everyone kept quiet? Should the majority define how those suffering from discrimination should react to it? Direct questions, so you can give direct answers. Yes/No will be clear without a change of subject. Please check the meaning of patronising in dictionary before using it everywhere. Your original post consists off a bunch of stuff people have said against the need for protests. I agree with some arguments against their views. Racism still exists and protests are used to point it out. That's a valid argument. There is a place for these protests for sure. But arguments like "how can someone from majority population understand what someone from a minority goes through?" is not a rational. If that's the case, you should also stop using the words "White privilege". How can you ever understand what a white person goes through? Also, no one can ever understand what another person goes through. So no one should advice others on how to do things? Most if their points about Olympic boycotts and overnight changes are subjective matters which needs open discussion. They are also citizens in the country and they have the right to get involved in these matters. As with your most other posts on the forum, you are asking a yes/no question on a complicated subject to get a favourable answer. Your question: "Should the majority define how those suffering from discrimination should react to it?" The point is no is defining. The majority is giving an opinion on this matter. They are trying to have an open debate. They have every right to do that because they live here and any change will affect them too." How about addressing the questions directly efore you start your long, meandering speeches? Do there is racism although you have spent several paragraphs saying that it is not a problem? You should be able to protest as you wish as long as it is not violent, although you have also said that people should just keep quiet as it will get better anyway? I have said nothing about not being able to understand someone else's point of view. Empathy is the entire point and the lack of it is the problem. I have said notho g about white privilege although I have said that equality seems like repression to the privileged. Is that untrue? I also did not say that the majority should not have an opi ion anywhere. Should they decide how those suffering from prejudice should feel and act? Have you actually read what I have written at all? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
DailyMash update on some important points about gesture politics:
What is gesture politics and what isn't: Priti Patel explains
13th July 2021
I’VE been in politics long enough to know what’s important and what’s a mere gesture by deluded millionaire Marxists who should stick to football. Let me explain:
Taking the knee: GESTURE
As both a victim of and perpetrator of racism, I know it from both sides. And kneeling before a game isn’t going to change anything. It’s ineffectual playing at politics. So stop it. Stop it. It’s meaningless and unimportant nonsense which is why it is imperative you stop immediately.
Tweeting a picture of yourself supporting England: IMPORTANT
It is vital we work with the social media tech giants to ensure as many people get access to images of the home secretary in a boxfresh England shirt cheering on her national side as possible. Access to these pictures should be compulsory.
Speaking frankly about your experience of racism: GESTURE
Marcus Rashford and his fellow England heroes have a duty to remain silent and not ruin the nation’s memories of a successful Euros by talking about bad things. If they’d only keep quiet they’d have more racist support and would win more, logically.
Going on dawn immigration raids: IMPORTANT
It was entirely necessary for me to go on dawn immigration raids and see humans dragged from their beds to be deported. I’d lost my motivation and wasn’t even into taking my anger out on staff anymore. But those raids fired me up and now I’ve invented new asylum laws.
Securing school meals for children in poverty over holidays: GESTURE
Marcus Rashford chose, while earning an estimated hundred million pounds a week, to attack a humble, hard-working government whose leader had been very ill, just because he felt sorry for hungry kids. What he did achived nothing, which is why we opposed it so furiously.
Driving a Union flag-painted Get Brexit Done tractor through a polystyrene wall: IMPORTANT
That wall of polystyrene blocks was one of the key obstacles standing between Britain and Brexit. It wasn’t symbolic. It was literally stopping Brexit happening and then Boris drove through it and Brexit happened. Because that’s us. Not gesture politics. Getting things done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-blasted-casual-24595359.amp Slightly on topic." Ah yes, but he didn't k ow that the term "Yellow peril" might in anyway be considered racist because he doesn't spend much time with "that sort" so couldn't possibly know. Anyway, it will not have any influence whatsoever on how the mythical markets in the Far East with whom we expect to increase our trade will view the UK  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority*" Do majority and minority exist in raceless world? What if an oppressed 'minority' protests along ethnic lines? Is that itself racism by the minority? Or even further, if the majority calls such minority protest as 'racism', is that the more covert racism? Finally, I think, to the ordinary person, anti-racism is a move towards a raceless world. Of course in a democratic society, the terms of such a world would dominated by the majority cultural traits. Are you therefore implying anti-racism policies are themselves racist because they come with the majority traits?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country? When someone makes a statement like "discrimination happens everyday to me", rest of the world will not accept it immediately. You have to prove it. On the caste subject, when one person scores 90 and another scores 80, the one who scored 90 should get the job. Instead, the one who scored 80 gets the job even though he is richer than the one who scored 90. If you think that's fair, I don't have anything to argue about it. The person who got the job by scoring just 80 is undeserving. People do get lazy because of quotas. Why work too hard to score 90 when a 70 can get you through? Are you saying a woman who gets into a problem with her husband, misuses the anti-dowry law to put her husband and his parents in jail eventually resulting in that family's suicide is fair game because women were discriminated badly in the past? Check out the documentary "martyrs of marriage" made by an Indian female lawyer who found out the stupidity of that law. Answer to historic discrimination is not more discrimination to compensate for it. You said that you never claimed that Britain is systematically racist then you go on to complain about pay gap. Anyway, I understand maths and I very well know what regression analysis means. You are the one who seems to use half bakes internet knowledge to make wrong claims. The calculations are there for the world to see. On ethnicity and fields where they shine, it has a lot more to do with the cultural dynamics than where they are "expected to excel at". Majority of Indians in India and Chinese in China also have the same characteristics. Most people try to get into engineering and medicine than into arts and sports. Why do you think India as a country with such a huge population struggles to win a single gold in Olympics? Indian parents influence their children's minds right from the beginning. They try their best to direct them into professional courses rather than pursuing arts and sports. Most people don't care about arts and sports. Again, remove your "oppressor vs oppressed" glasses and you will get a more realistic view of the world. I did not state that "descrimination happens everyday to me". I did not bring up the pay gap either. I responded. Read. You're making something up to suit the argument that you want to have, again. If you really believe that there are people in this country really do not suffer from direct or I direct desrimination at some level on an almost daily basis, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling with this conversation. Look up Gov.uk Ethnicity facts and figures Then have a think about what this means to people on a daily basis and don't tell me that the Asian Indian group, which you belong to, proves that there is no problem when others are in dire straits. You also appear to have brought an entire set of views with you about caste and sex which inform your other opinions. Quite frankly, I struggle with there tone and ha e no idea how to react with them except with some level of shock. "Most people" do not care about arts and sports? I'll leave that one too. I have never said anything even remotely resemjng a narrative of "oppressor and oppressed". You are once again making up an argument to suit your own ideas. What's the subject of the thread? How have you addressed it with anything that you have written?" You are the one who asked about discrimination in India and I answered. Now you are complaining about the post not being related to the subject of the thread? You are the one who asked if I would be resilient if I am discriminated weekly or daily and I answered. Now you are backing off saying that you never said that you are discriminated daily. Then you are back to saying I am struggling in the conversation because people are indeed being discriminated on a daily basis. But you give no proof for that. In a country that discriminates people on daily basis, no other race would manage to shine well in any of the high paying fields. I used that as a proof against your argument and apparently that is diverting the topic too. I have backed my opinion on caste and sex with facts. If you are shocked about facts, I can't do anything about it. It is a fact that majority of people in India flock into engineering and medicine rather than arts and sports. We even have a joke going around in India about ourselves - "We Indians become engineers first and then we think about what we want to do with life". And you say you will "leave that one too". The fact that you say some ethnicities are overly represented in some fields is because "they are expected to excel" and you are trying to justify every bad law that has clearly failed with some discrimination excuse, you are seeing everything with race/oppression glasses. So no. I am not making it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* Do majority and minority exist in raceless world? What if an oppressed 'minority' protests along ethnic lines? Is that itself racism by the minority? Or even further, if the majority calls such minority protest as 'racism', is that the more covert racism? Finally, I think, to the ordinary person, anti-racism is a move towards a raceless world. Of course in a democratic society, the terms of such a world would dominated by the majority cultural traits. Are you therefore implying anti-racism policies are themselves racist because they come with the majority traits? "This does not address the thread. However, I also do not understand the point you are making. Not being penalised for ethnicity is racist? Protesting unfair treatment is racist? Being a member of a minority doesn't matter if opportunity and treatment is the same. If you mean that distinct ethnicity disappears due to mixed marriages, then so what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* Do majority and minority exist in raceless world? What if an oppressed 'minority' protests along ethnic lines? Is that itself racism by the minority? Or even further, if the majority calls such minority protest as 'racism', is that the more covert racism? Finally, I think, to the ordinary person, anti-racism is a move towards a raceless world. Of course in a democratic society, the terms of such a world would dominated by the majority cultural traits. Are you therefore implying anti-racism policies are themselves racist because they come with the majority traits?
This does not address the thread.
However, I also do not understand the point you are making.
Not being penalised for ethnicity is racist?
Protesting unfair treatment is racist?
Being a member of a minority doesn't matter if opportunity and treatment is the same.
If you mean that distinct ethnicity disappears due to mixed marriages, then so what?"I think maybe you are misunderstanding me and are cross talking. OP, you brought up a majority versus minority issue in racism conversation, your words, as quoted by me above. My questions were addressed to you, as I am trying to understand what you mean. If you ask my opinion, I think we are moving in the right direction in the UK. I believe in individuals freedom, choice and tolerance for others choices. I am not concerned about a majority versus minority issue in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* Do majority and minority exist in raceless world? What if an oppressed 'minority' protests along ethnic lines? Is that itself racism by the minority? Or even further, if the majority calls such minority protest as 'racism', is that the more covert racism? Finally, I think, to the ordinary person, anti-racism is a move towards a raceless world. Of course in a democratic society, the terms of such a world would dominated by the majority cultural traits. Are you therefore implying anti-racism policies are themselves racist because they come with the majority traits? "lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* Do majority and minority exist in raceless world? What if an oppressed 'minority' protests along ethnic lines? Is that itself racism by the minority? Or even further, if the majority calls such minority protest as 'racism', is that the more covert racism? Finally, I think, to the ordinary person, anti-racism is a move towards a raceless world. Of course in a democratic society, the terms of such a world would dominated by the majority cultural traits. Are you therefore implying anti-racism policies are themselves racist because they come with the majority traits?
This does not address the thread.
However, I also do not understand the point you are making.
Not being penalised for ethnicity is racist?
Protesting unfair treatment is racist?
Being a member of a minority doesn't matter if opportunity and treatment is the same.
If you mean that distinct ethnicity disappears due to mixed marriages, then so what?
I think maybe you are misunderstanding me and are cross talking.
OP, you brought up a majority versus minority issue in racism conversation, your words, as quoted by me above.
My questions were addressed to you, as I am trying to understand what you mean.
If you ask my opinion, I think we are moving in the right direction in the UK. I believe in individuals freedom, choice and tolerance for others choices. I am not concerned about a majority versus minority issue in the UK. "No, I was not referring to what you appear to be. You have not quoted my words. I have not said that we are not generally moving in the right direction, despite recent reversals. I have not discussed majority vs minority either. This is not about conflict. My OP is about protest and who defines what is acceptable. I still do not actually know what you are referring to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First time seeing this thread and when you wish to unsee something. "Coloured people" " I'm not sure that I understand this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First time seeing this thread and when you wish to unsee something. "Coloured people" I'm not sure that I understand this." I think the poster means you've posted about Protesting against racism whilst using what is considered a racist term. I am guessing though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority*" This is what I quoted from you above. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country? When someone makes a statement like "discrimination happens everyday to me", rest of the world will not accept it immediately. You have to prove it. On the caste subject, when one person scores 90 and another scores 80, the one who scored 90 should get the job. Instead, the one who scored 80 gets the job even though he is richer than the one who scored 90. If you think that's fair, I don't have anything to argue about it. The person who got the job by scoring just 80 is undeserving. People do get lazy because of quotas. Why work too hard to score 90 when a 70 can get you through? Are you saying a woman who gets into a problem with her husband, misuses the anti-dowry law to put her husband and his parents in jail eventually resulting in that family's suicide is fair game because women were discriminated badly in the past? Check out the documentary "martyrs of marriage" made by an Indian female lawyer who found out the stupidity of that law. Answer to historic discrimination is not more discrimination to compensate for it. You said that you never claimed that Britain is systematically racist then you go on to complain about pay gap. Anyway, I understand maths and I very well know what regression analysis means. You are the one who seems to use half bakes internet knowledge to make wrong claims. The calculations are there for the world to see. On ethnicity and fields where they shine, it has a lot more to do with the cultural dynamics than where they are "expected to excel at". Majority of Indians in India and Chinese in China also have the same characteristics. Most people try to get into engineering and medicine than into arts and sports. Why do you think India as a country with such a huge population struggles to win a single gold in Olympics? Indian parents influence their children's minds right from the beginning. They try their best to direct them into professional courses rather than pursuing arts and sports. Most people don't care about arts and sports. Again, remove your "oppressor vs oppressed" glasses and you will get a more realistic view of the world. I did not state that "descrimination happens everyday to me". I did not bring up the pay gap either. I responded. Read. You're making something up to suit the argument that you want to have, again. If you really believe that there are people in this country really do not suffer from direct or I direct desrimination at some level on an almost daily basis, then I'm not surprised that you are struggling with this conversation. Look up Gov.uk Ethnicity facts and figures Then have a think about what this means to people on a daily basis and don't tell me that the Asian Indian group, which you belong to, proves that there is no problem when others are in dire straits. You also appear to have brought an entire set of views with you about caste and sex which inform your other opinions. Quite frankly, I struggle with there tone and ha e no idea how to react with them except with some level of shock. "Most people" do not care about arts and sports? I'll leave that one too. I have never said anything even remotely resemjng a narrative of "oppressor and oppressed". You are once again making up an argument to suit your own ideas. What's the subject of the thread? How have you addressed it with anything that you have written? You are the one who asked about discrimination in India and I answered. Now you are complaining about the post not being related to the subject of the thread? You are the one who asked if I would be resilient if I am discriminated weekly or daily and I answered. Now you are backing off saying that you never said that you are discriminated daily. Then you are back to saying I am struggling in the conversation because people are indeed being discriminated on a daily basis. But you give no proof for that. In a country that discriminates people on daily basis, no other race would manage to shine well in any of the high paying fields. I used that as a proof against your argument and apparently that is diverting the topic too. I have backed my opinion on caste and sex with facts. If you are shocked about facts, I can't do anything about it. It is a fact that majority of people in India flock into engineering and medicine rather than arts and sports. We even have a joke going around in India about ourselves - "We Indians become engineers first and then we think about what we want to do with life". And you say you will "leave that one too". The fact that you say some ethnicities are overly represented in some fields is because "they are expected to excel" and you are trying to justify every bad law that has clearly failed with some discrimination excuse, you are seeing everything with race/oppression glasses. So no. I am not making it up." I asked about your experience of growing up in India. I did not "bring up" caste. You did. What it has established is that you did not grow up experiencing prejudice in your day to day life. It also raised attitudes that you appear to have about those with an even less privileged position in society than your own which I find disturbing, but you see no issue with. It puts your views in context. I have provided you with the proof, but you have chosen not to loon at the Gov.uk Ethnicity facts and figures. You also continue to insist that the experience of Indian Asians are fully representative of all. That is self-evidently untrue. You continue to accuse me of seeing "everything" with race/oppression glasses. Not a bit of it. This thread just happens to be about this topic. I've not "failed" to use a discrimination "excuse" for anything. The only purpose of this thread is to highlight the fact that those suffering from prejudice should not be told how to feel about it or what form of protest is acceptable (outside of violent action). The only comments made here in opposition is either that there is no racism so protest is unnecessary or that people have to just accept it. Your own position seems to have wandered. Any change of topic about protest has come from other posters wanting to bring in other arguments and shift the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"First time seeing this thread and when you wish to unsee something. "Coloured people" I'm not sure that I understand this. I think the poster means you've posted about Protesting against racism whilst using what is considered a racist term. I am guessing though." We might find out. Not sure how "people of colour" is significantly different but perhaps more loaded in the US or South Africa where it had very real consequences. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. " Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. " Also, to be clear, the majority telling the mi krith how to behave is not one vs the other. Most of the time it is offering an opinion without empathy. That's not majority vs the minority. That's just lack of consideration. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread." I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together? 
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together?
"I'm still not following. Most forms of prejudice involve a larger population and a smaller population. The thread is about who decides how someone feels and how they can react to it. Do you have a view on that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. " Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh" I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh" I'm presuming talking nonsense was meant to be ironic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence." What police violence would that be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be?" You want specific examples? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be? You want specific examples?" I want specific examples of people on this forum that are against poltical violence but condone police brutality. Which is what you where claiming, is it not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be? You want specific examples? I want specific examples of people on this forum that are against poltical violence but condone police brutality. Which is what you where claiming, is it not " Perhaps the words. Ive mot seen anyone condemning police violence went over your head? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be? You want specific examples? I want specific examples of people on this forum that are against poltical violence but condone police brutality. Which is what you where claiming, is it not Perhaps the words. Ive mot seen anyone condemning police violence went over your head?" Why should they? The conversation hasn't gone that way. we are talking about the act of protest itself not the interaction said protest has with the police. Plus I would very much doubt you would care if the police battered some protesters that you politically or ideologically disagreed with anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be? You want specific examples? I want specific examples of people on this forum that are against poltical violence but condone police brutality. Which is what you where claiming, is it not Perhaps the words. Ive mot seen anyone condemning police violence went over your head? Why should they? The conversation hasn't gone that way. we are talking about the act of protest itself not the interaction said protest has with the police. Plus I would very much doubt you would care if the police battered some protesters that you politically or ideologically disagreed with anyway. " Protest is often met with violence from the police And I really couldnt give a toss what you think,so perhaps stay on topic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be?" One of the many problems of advocating violence is that those opposed to your view might also use it against you. If people are going to say its acceptable to get things done then don't be surprised if others use it against you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together?
I'm still not following.
Most forms of prejudice involve a larger population and a smaller population.
The thread is about who decides how someone feels and how they can react to it.
Do you have a view on that?"I am not understanding your logic either so... one last try... Anti-racism policies are a move towards a race-less world. In that world, there is no majority and no minority in race terms. Similarly, there is no "larger population" and "smaller population" in race terms. There is just no "us and/versus them". We are all just humans. So, I think it's counter productive to introduce these words (majority and minority in race terms, larger population and smaller population in race terms) into the anti-racism conversation. I repeat, we are all just humans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together?
I'm still not following.
Most forms of prejudice involve a larger population and a smaller population.
The thread is about who decides how someone feels and how they can react to it.
Do you have a view on that?
I am not understanding your logic either so... one last try...
Anti-racism policies are a move towards a race-less world. In that world, there is no majority and no minority in race terms. Similarly, there is no "larger population" and "smaller population" in race terms. There is just no "us and/versus them". We are all just humans.
So, I think it's counter productive to introduce these words (majority and minority in race terms, larger population and smaller population in race terms) into the anti-racism conversation. I repeat, we are all just humans.
"So are you saying that because at some unspecified point in the future everything will be fixed in some unknown process there is no point in discussing the situation as it exists now? I am perfectly aware that we are all just humans. How does that eplain why people suffering from prejudice are being told how to feel and what protest is acceptable? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together?
I'm still not following.
Most forms of prejudice involve a larger population and a smaller population.
The thread is about who decides how someone feels and how they can react to it.
Do you have a view on that?
I am not understanding your logic either so... one last try...
Anti-racism policies are a move towards a race-less world. In that world, there is no majority and no minority in race terms. Similarly, there is no "larger population" and "smaller population" in race terms. There is just no "us and/versus them". We are all just humans.
So, I think it's counter productive to introduce these words (majority and minority in race terms, larger population and smaller population in race terms) into the anti-racism conversation. I repeat, we are all just humans.
So are you saying that because at some unspecified point in the future everything will be fixed in
some unknown process there is no point in discussing the situation as it exists now?
I am perfectly aware that we are all just humans.
How does that eplain why people suffering from prejudice are being told how to feel and what protest is acceptable?"By all means discuss it, that's what democracy is all about. I think it's cheeky to protest racism but then use/claim race as a fact. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be? One of the many problems of advocating violence is that those opposed to your view might also use it against you. If people are going to say its acceptable to get things done then don't be surprised if others use it against you. " And what happens when it's the police who initiate it? Is that opinion still valid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together?
I'm still not following.
Most forms of prejudice involve a larger population and a smaller population.
The thread is about who decides how someone feels and how they can react to it.
Do you have a view on that?
I am not understanding your logic either so... one last try...
Anti-racism policies are a move towards a race-less world. In that world, there is no majority and no minority in race terms. Similarly, there is no "larger population" and "smaller population" in race terms. There is just no "us and/versus them". We are all just humans.
So, I think it's counter productive to introduce these words (majority and minority in race terms, larger population and smaller population in race terms) into the anti-racism conversation. I repeat, we are all just humans.
So are you saying that because at some unspecified point in the future everything will be fixed in
some unknown process there is no point in discussing the situation as it exists now?
I am perfectly aware that we are all just humans.
How does that eplain why people suffering from prejudice are being told how to feel and what protest is acceptable?
By all means discuss it, that's what democracy is all about.
I think it's cheeky to protest racism but then use/claim race as a fact. "So the reality of racial prejudice cannot be protested if the ultimate goal is for it not to matter? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be? One of the many problems of advocating violence is that those opposed to your view might also use it against you. If people are going to say its acceptable to get things done then don't be surprised if others use it against you. And what happens when it's the police who initiate it? Is that opinion still valid?" If the police initiate violence, I will condemn it. Anyone against violence will condemn it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together?
I'm still not following.
Most forms of prejudice involve a larger population and a smaller population.
The thread is about who decides how someone feels and how they can react to it.
Do you have a view on that?
I am not understanding your logic either so... one last try...
Anti-racism policies are a move towards a race-less world. In that world, there is no majority and no minority in race terms. Similarly, there is no "larger population" and "smaller population" in race terms. There is just no "us and/versus them". We are all just humans.
So, I think it's counter productive to introduce these words (majority and minority in race terms, larger population and smaller population in race terms) into the anti-racism conversation. I repeat, we are all just humans.
So are you saying that because at some unspecified point in the future everything will be fixed in
some unknown process there is no point in discussing the situation as it exists now?
I am perfectly aware that we are all just humans.
How does that eplain why people suffering from prejudice are being told how to feel and what protest is acceptable?
By all means discuss it, that's what democracy is all about.
I think it's cheeky to protest racism but then use/claim race as a fact.
So the reality of racial prejudice cannot be protested if the ultimate goal is for it not to matter?"Protests are allowed. But I think you are confusing the issue, in your excitement to try and help. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also find it curious that those so opposed to violence apparently have no issue with police brutality. Im sorry, but where the fuck have you seen people condone police brutality? I know you like talk nonsense but that takes the cake tbh I've seen people say violence is never acceptable but unless I'm missing something,I've seen no condemnation of police violence. What police violence would that be? One of the many problems of advocating violence is that those opposed to your view might also use it against you. If people are going to say its acceptable to get things done then don't be surprised if others use it against you. And what happens when it's the police who initiate it? Is that opinion still valid?" It does not matter who is doing it it remain wrong. They have the right to defend themselves of course like anyone but assuming you mean if they go and randomly attack people then of course thats wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why the thread is going around in circles. 1)People who feel racial discrimination is a major issue have the right to protest. 2)People who have feel otherwise have the right to "say" why a protest is not necessary. 3) People who don't like the method of protests have the right to "say" why they don't like the methods. People in category 1 have the right to ignore people in categories 2 and 3. They are also welcome to debate with categories 2 and 3. As long as everything above happens without violence, it is fine. Everyone's right to protest is upheld. Everyone's right to speak is upheld. Democracy wins. " No idea as you have now answered the only thing that was ever asked. Thank you for that. Although we did go through all the stages of denial of the issue and it improving anyway, and being grateful for what has happened so far and you've never had it so good and stop whining that are the usual arguments made against protest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Uncontroversial assertion then? Pointing out the hypocrisy of the majority telling the majority how to feel and act? Strange, as it isn't the case in other threads... Majority telling the minority* This is what I quoted from you above. Still not following what point you are making in general about the topic of the thread. I just thought that your use of majority and minority differentiation words, in the same conversation as anti-racism, required further explanation. Perhaps the words majority, minority and anti-racism, are not compatible together?
I'm still not following.
Most forms of prejudice involve a larger population and a smaller population.
The thread is about who decides how someone feels and how they can react to it.
Do you have a view on that?
I am not understanding your logic either so... one last try...
Anti-racism policies are a move towards a race-less world. In that world, there is no majority and no minority in race terms. Similarly, there is no "larger population" and "smaller population" in race terms. There is just no "us and/versus them". We are all just humans.
So, I think it's counter productive to introduce these words (majority and minority in race terms, larger population and smaller population in race terms) into the anti-racism conversation. I repeat, we are all just humans.
So are you saying that because at some unspecified point in the future everything will be fixed in
some unknown process there is no point in discussing the situation as it exists now?
I am perfectly aware that we are all just humans.
How does that eplain why people suffering from prejudice are being told how to feel and what protest is acceptable?
By all means discuss it, that's what democracy is all about.
I think it's cheeky to protest racism but then use/claim race as a fact.
So the reality of racial prejudice cannot be protested if the ultimate goal is for it not to matter?
Protests are allowed.
But I think you are confusing the issue, in your excitement to try and help.
"You can think that. I'm really not confused. What is stated is absolutely unambiguous. I wasn't actually expecting for you to give permission to protest though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why the thread is going around in circles. 1)People who feel racial discrimination is a major issue have the right to protest. 2)People who have feel otherwise have the right to "say" why a protest is not necessary. 3) People who don't like the method of protests have the right to "say" why they don't like the methods. People in category 1 have the right to ignore people in categories 2 and 3. They are also welcome to debate with categories 2 and 3. As long as everything above happens without violence, it is fine. Everyone's right to protest is upheld. Everyone's right to speak is upheld. Democracy wins. No idea as you have now answered the only thing that was ever asked. Thank you for that. Although we did go through all the stages of denial of the issue and it improving anyway, and being grateful for what has happened so far and you've never had it so good and stop whining that are the usual arguments made against protest." If they say that things are not bad as the protestors proclaim to be, show evidence against that instead of copping out with arguments like "Majority cannot tell minorities how they should protest". When minorities don't do well in a field, you blame racism for that. If minorities do well in a field, you blame racism for that too. When asked for a rational evidence, you say that it's not your job to prove. Including my own post, people have answered your questions multiple times. Majority can tell minorities how they can protest. There is nothing wrong in expressing one's opinion. It looks like you can't take no for an answer. Unfortunately no one is in a mood to say yes too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I wish to protest by taking a shit through letter boxes..... its non violent and dont tell me it's wrong and the police can't stop me lol not sure how long the protest will take! It fits all ops criteria doesn't it? "
Apparently who can and cannot tell that it's wrong depends on race of the people involved. And they call other people racists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So I wish to protest by taking a shit through letter boxes..... its non violent and dont tell me it's wrong and the police can't stop me lol not sure how long the protest will take! It fits all ops criteria doesn't it? " I still don't k ow what you're argument is about. Well done though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why the thread is going around in circles. 1)People who feel racial discrimination is a major issue have the right to protest. 2)People who have feel otherwise have the right to "say" why a protest is not necessary. 3) People who don't like the method of protests have the right to "say" why they don't like the methods. People in category 1 have the right to ignore people in categories 2 and 3. They are also welcome to debate with categories 2 and 3. As long as everything above happens without violence, it is fine. Everyone's right to protest is upheld. Everyone's right to speak is upheld. Democracy wins. No idea as you have now answered the only thing that was ever asked. Thank you for that. Although we did go through all the stages of denial of the issue and it improving anyway, and being grateful for what has happened so far and you've never had it so good and stop whining that are the usual arguments made against protest. If they say that things are not bad as the protestors proclaim to be, show evidence against that instead of copping out with arguments like "Majority cannot tell minorities how they should protest". When minorities don't do well in a field, you blame racism for that. If minorities do well in a field, you blame racism for that too. When asked for a rational evidence, you say that it's not your job to prove. Including my own post, people have answered your questions multiple times. Majority can tell minorities how they can protest. There is nothing wrong in expressing one's opinion. It looks like you can't take no for an answer. Unfortunately no one is in a mood to say yes too." I have lost interest and any will to argue. I am sooooo bored! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"had a Chinese friend who used to say it doesnt matter if your a black twat a white twat or a yellow twat you are still a fucking twat lol some people like an excuse for not achieving what they feel they should have, i could have been a contender.... lol Still completely ignoring the purpose of the thread. Up to you I guess "Sanctimony and arrogance are the fuel which powers leftist woke ideas. I will not debate with such people, lest I too be taken for a fool. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"had a Chinese friend who used to say it doesnt matter if your a black twat a white twat or a yellow twat you are still a fucking twat lol some people like an excuse for not achieving what they feel they should have, i could have been a contender.... lol Still completely ignoring the purpose of the thread. Up to you I guess
Sanctimony and arrogance are the fuel which powers leftist woke ideas.
I will not debate with such people, lest I too be taken for a fool."You haven't even commented on the topic. You don't see the arrogance in that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why the thread is going around in circles. 1)People who feel racial discrimination is a major issue have the right to protest. 2)People who have feel otherwise have the right to "say" why a protest is not necessary. 3) People who don't like the method of protests have the right to "say" why they don't like the methods. People in category 1 have the right to ignore people in categories 2 and 3. They are also welcome to debate with categories 2 and 3. As long as everything above happens without violence, it is fine. Everyone's right to protest is upheld. Everyone's right to speak is upheld. Democracy wins. No idea as you have now answered the only thing that was ever asked. Thank you for that. Although we did go through all the stages of denial of the issue and it improving anyway, and being grateful for what has happened so far and you've never had it so good and stop whining that are the usual arguments made against protest. If they say that things are not bad as the protestors proclaim to be, show evidence against that instead of copping out with arguments like "Majority cannot tell minorities how they should protest". When minorities don't do well in a field, you blame racism for that. If minorities do well in a field, you blame racism for that too. When asked for a rational evidence, you say that it's not your job to prove. Including my own post, people have answered your questions multiple times. Majority can tell minorities how they can protest. There is nothing wrong in expressing one's opinion. It looks like you can't take no for an answer. Unfortunately no one is in a mood to say yes too. I have lost interest and any will to argue. I am sooooo bored! dont matter if youre a white clown a brown clown or a yellow clown, youre still a clown "Rude is still rude too. How about not insulting people? Could you at least manage that even if you disagree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"had a Chinese friend who used to say it doesnt matter if your a black twat a white twat or a yellow twat you are still a fucking twat lol some people like an excuse for not achieving what they feel they should have, i could have been a contender.... lol Still completely ignoring the purpose of the thread. Up to you I guess
Sanctimony and arrogance are the fuel which powers leftist woke ideas.
I will not debate with such people, lest I too be taken for a fool."Yeah you dodged a bullet there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"had a Chinese friend who used to say it doesnt matter if your a black twat a white twat or a yellow twat you are still a fucking twat lol some people like an excuse for not achieving what they feel they should have, i could have been a contender.... lol Still completely ignoring the purpose of the thread. Up to you I guess
Sanctimony and arrogance are the fuel which powers leftist woke ideas.
I will not debate with such people, lest I too be taken for a fool.
Yeah you dodged a bullet there."Send in the clowns send in the clowns.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
‘BLM is being shoved down our throats’ insists football fan during match’s 58th gambling advert
December 7, 2020
Written by Rich Smith
A football fan has today expressed his annoyance at Black Lives Matter being shoved down this throat for 15-seconds a week at the start of each football match, despite having no issue whatsoever with the fifty-eight gambling ads that will be beamed directly into his brain during the following two hours.
Simon Williams, a stay-at-home Millwall fan, told reporters that he was sick of having Black Lives Matter shoved down this throat each and every week, insisting those fifteen seconds will end up making society much worse.
He told us, “BLM isn’t about racism, it’s about a dangerous left-wing ideology that is trying to turn everyone communist – that’s what the YouTube video said, and what reason would they have to lie about it?
“BLM is corrupting a nation’s young people, and this kneeling before games must be stopped. If my booing players that kneel helps to speed that along, then great!”
When asked how fifteen seconds of solidarity with BLM was definitely corrupting people, but the twenty-minutes of gambling adverts during the game isn’t, Williams was dismissive.
He went on, “Gambling adverts aren’t doing that though. How could they? How could lovable ‘ol Ray Winstone yelling ‘GAMBLE!’ at a million television owners possibly have a detrimental effect on anyone?
“No, I think it’s pretty clear that 15-seconds of kneeling in support of BLM is far more harmful to society than 20-minutes of people being loudly encouraged to give their money to bookmakers of all colours.
“Which is why I’ll happily continue booing anyone who kneels before a game. Well, those I can still afford to watch as I’m actually quite skint this month as none of my big accumulators came in.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Keep politics out of football, says booing England fan making racist political statement
8th June 2021
AN England fan tired of politics getting in the way of football has expressed disagreement by making a racist political statement that gets in the way of football.
Supporter Stephen Malley was so enraged by the England team showing solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement that he felt compelled to show his solidarity with the booing racist gobshite movement.
Malley said: “Football has always been a safe haven completely untroubled by issues of inequality, so it was a real shame to see the woke agenda creep onto the field. I blame the black players.
“As I watched Tyrone Mings go down on one knee I decided enough was enough and let out a long, sonorous boo. Libtards will call me a racist, but what’s racist about making a recognised sound of disparagement as footballers stand up for the rights of black people?
“All I know about Black Lives Matter is it’s prejudiced for excluding whites. In my own way I was trying to help the team see that, and that’s why my brave boos were met with rapturous applause.
“Also it’s Marxist and they’re all millionaires, so I’m actually helping them. I expect I’ll be invited for a knighthood by the end of the week.”
Gareth Southgate said: “So long as we have racist twat fans like Stephen, we’re going to keep doing this.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement." You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. " Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter." What are you basing that on exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. What are you basing that on exactly?" Which part? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. What are you basing that on exactly? Which part?" The vast majority bit.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. What are you basing that on exactly? Which part? The vast majority bit.." Because it’s a minority booing the players. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. What are you basing that on exactly? Which part? The vast majority bit.. Because it’s a minority booing the players." So why were they booing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. What are you basing that on exactly? Which part? The vast majority bit.. Because it’s a minority booing the players. So why were they booing?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. What are you basing that on exactly? Which part? The vast majority bit.. Because it’s a minority booing the players. So why were they booing? "He doesn't understand minority/majority | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who say taking the knee should stop because it’s associated with the Black Lives Matter movement , would you also suggest we stop flying the England flag because it’s associated with the far right movement. You might associate the cross of St George with the far right but i would suggest the majority of the world associate it with England. Likewise the vast majority of football fans don’t boo the players taking the knee because they know it’s got nothing to do with Black Lives Matter. What are you basing that on exactly? Which part? The vast majority bit.. Because it’s a minority booing the players. So why were they booing? "I really dont get what you are saying Sorry. I think I've misunderstood your post I thought you.were talking about the people who were booing. Apologies | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure why the thread is going around in circles. 1)People who feel racial discrimination is a major issue have the right to protest. 2)People who have feel otherwise have the right to "say" why a protest is not necessary. 3) People who don't like the method of protests have the right to "say" why they don't like the methods. People in category 1 have the right to ignore people in categories 2 and 3. They are also welcome to debate with categories 2 and 3. As long as everything above happens without violence, it is fine. Everyone's right to protest is upheld. Everyone's right to speak is upheld. Democracy wins. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They don’t want people to protest loud…. They don’t like people marching… They don’t like people standing up…. They don’t like people sitting down…. They don’t like people raising a fist…. They don’t like people taking a knee…. So…. Strongly worded memo it is then… not too strong now, people may get upset!!!!! "I am all for peaceful protest. Democracy should be the way of the world. Its when the "rent a mob" turn up in their ugly disguise and start beating up coppers. Torching cars and buildings and have no clue as to the protest they have attended. That's when my piss boils. All to often these people are paid to cause mayhem and to divide a nation. And the poor old boys in Blue are caught in the middle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They don’t want people to protest loud…. They don’t like people marching… They don’t like people standing up…. They don’t like people sitting down…. They don’t like people raising a fist…. They don’t like people taking a knee…. So…. Strongly worded memo it is then… not too strong now, people may get upset!!!!!
I am all for peaceful protest. Democracy should be the way of the world. Its when the "rent a mob" turn up in their ugly disguise and start beating up coppers. Torching cars and buildings and have no clue as to the protest they have attended. That's when my piss boils. All to often these people are paid to cause mayhem and to divide a nation. And the poor old boys in Blue are caught in the middle. "I don't know why rioting and damage to property and Police seems to be brought up all the time in this context? As far as I can see, only the toppling of one statue in Bristol and the vandalism of one plinth in London can be defined in this context unless we go back to the riots in Brixton and Toxteth last century. Is this pertinent to the original OP? Condoning violence is no part of the diacussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Majority people don't mind/care about taking the knee or the protests as long as they are peaceful. Damaging public property in the name of protests is where the movement earned its bad name. Maybe people didnt agree with deifying s@@@@ traders? If I don't like the colour of your light bulb, should I just break it? We live in a democracy. Learn to respect it. There are so many things people don't like. They don't go around breaking stuff. My lightbulb wouldnt be out on display. I'm sure all those s##### treasured our 'democracy' What a silly argument!! We live in a democracy now. It is not allowed to break public property just because you don't like it. If your bulb is not displayed outside, how about your doors and windows. People who don't like them can break them? Who the hell are these protesters and what rights do they have to break them? My windows are private property..your argument doesmt make any sense. Like I said in my 1st post..they disagree with a society which celebrates people who sold s@@@@ You disagree doesn't mean you can break public property. There are democratic processes for it. No matter how long it takes, that's how things should be done. If you are going to support some brain dead idiots who think breaking public property just because they don't like it is fine, you are essentially supporting anarchy. What next? If the climate activists break down all buses running on fossil fuels, because they are contributing to pollution, would you support that too? Would you say these buses are harmful to environment and breaking them is justified? There needs to be democratic discussions around these topics and only then actions can be taken. It's bullshit like this that the protesters were disliked. The whole idea that "I don't like this. So I will break it" is stupidity of the highest order." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country? When someone makes a statement like "discrimination happens everyday to me", rest of the world will not accept it immediately. You have to prove it. On the caste subject, when one person scores 90 and another scores 80, the one who scored 90 should get the job. Instead, the one who scored 80 gets the job even though he is richer than the one who scored 90. If you think that's fair, I don't have anything to argue about it. The person who got the job by scoring just 80 is undeserving. People do get lazy because of quotas. Why work too hard to score 90 when a 70 can get you through? Are you saying a woman who gets into a problem with her husband, misuses the anti-dowry law to put her husband and his parents in jail eventually resulting in that family's suicide is fair game because women were discriminated badly in the past? Check out the documentary "martyrs of marriage" made by an Indian female lawyer who found out the stupidity of that law. Answer to historic discrimination is not more discrimination to compensate for it. You said that you never claimed that Britain is systematically racist then you go on to complain about pay gap. Anyway, I understand maths and I very well know what regression analysis means. You are the one who seems to use half bakes internet knowledge to make wrong claims. The calculations are there for the world to see. On ethnicity and fields where they shine, it has a lot more to do with the cultural dynamics than where they are "expected to excel at". Majority of Indians in India and Chinese in China also have the same characteristics. Most people try to get into engineering and medicine than into arts and sports. Why do you think India as a country with such a huge population struggles to win a single gold in Olympics? Indian parents influence their children's minds right from the beginning. They try their best to direct them into professional courses rather than pursuing arts and sports. Most people don't care about arts and sports. Again, remove your "oppressor vs oppressed" glasses and you will get a more realistic view of the world." This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the final outcome here that racism and other prejudice does exist and has a significant negative effect on a lot of people in this country? They should not have to wait quietly for several more decades for bigger improvements or put up with the situation as it is. They should be able to protest in any non-violent way that they choose. Altertively do some posters believe that all of this is unacceptable and it should not be discussed in any way nor anything done about racism or prejudice?" Its very hard for a white person to discuss racism as no matter what they say is always interpreted by some as racist that's why i try to stay clear of these debates and would think many others feel the same.Nothing will ever get solved without debate but if people are systematically called racist because they have a different view it will do nothing but slow up progress. The UK has the most diverse cabinet that it has ever had i would say that is progress. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the final outcome here that racism and other prejudice does exist and has a significant negative effect on a lot of people in this country? They should not have to wait quietly for several more decades for bigger improvements or put up with the situation as it is. They should be able to protest in any non-violent way that they choose. Altertively do some posters believe that all of this is unacceptable and it should not be discussed in any way nor anything done about racism or prejudice?Its very hard for a white person to discuss racism as no matter what they say is always interpreted by some as racist that's why i try to stay clear of these debates and would think many others feel the same.Nothing will ever get solved without debate but if people are systematically called racist because they have a different view it will do nothing but slow up progress. The UK has the most diverse cabinet that it has ever had i would say that is progress. " Who's been called anyone racist on this thread? The proposition was pretty straightforward. I posted it satirically, but I'm not sure that what I wrote was that controversial. What do you agree with and what don't you agree with? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the final outcome here that racism and other prejudice does exist and has a significant negative effect on a lot of people in this country? They should not have to wait quietly for several more decades for bigger improvements or put up with the situation as it is. They should be able to protest in any non-violent way that they choose. Altertively do some posters believe that all of this is unacceptable and it should not be discussed in any way nor anything done about racism or prejudice?Its very hard for a white person to discuss racism as no matter what they say is always interpreted by some as racist that's why i try to stay clear of these debates and would think many others feel the same.Nothing will ever get solved without debate but if people are systematically called racist because they have a different view it will do nothing but slow up progress. The UK has the most diverse cabinet that it has ever had i would say that is progress. " The diverse cabinet contains one of the most racist women I know. In one generation Priti Patel is bringing forward legislation that would have prevented her parents from settling. Is that progress? Do this, deliberately, visible few prove that there is no problem? Nothing more needs to be done? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the final outcome here that racism and other prejudice does exist and has a significant negative effect on a lot of people in this country? They should not have to wait quietly for several more decades for bigger improvements or put up with the situation as it is. They should be able to protest in any non-violent way that they choose. Altertively do some posters believe that all of this is unacceptable and it should not be discussed in any way nor anything done about racism or prejudice?Its very hard for a white person to discuss racism as no matter what they say is always interpreted by some as racist that's why i try to stay clear of these debates and would think many others feel the same.Nothing will ever get solved without debate but if people are systematically called racist because they have a different view it will do nothing but slow up progress. The UK has the most diverse cabinet that it has ever had i would say that is progress. Who's been called anyone racist on this thread? The proposition was pretty straightforward. I posted it satirically, but I'm not sure that what I wrote was that controversial. What do you agree with and what don't you agree with?" Not on this thread mate but there's been plenty on other threads over the years that have. You say but ive got black mates reply everyone says that ,oh the black mates card. Honestly its not worth it i just wanted to explain the reason posts like this do not encourage debate and im not getting drawn into it but will watch with interest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Is the final outcome here that racism and other prejudice does exist and has a significant negative effect on a lot of people in this country? They should not have to wait quietly for several more decades for bigger improvements or put up with the situation as it is. They should be able to protest in any non-violent way that they choose. Altertively do some posters believe that all of this is unacceptable and it should not be discussed in any way nor anything done about racism or prejudice?Its very hard for a white person to discuss racism as no matter what they say is always interpreted by some as racist that's why i try to stay clear of these debates and would think many others feel the same.Nothing will ever get solved without debate but if people are systematically called racist because they have a different view it will do nothing but slow up progress. The UK has the most diverse cabinet that it has ever had i would say that is progress. Who's been called anyone racist on this thread? The proposition was pretty straightforward. I posted it satirically, but I'm not sure that what I wrote was that controversial. What do you agree with and what don't you agree with?Not on this thread mate but there's been plenty on other threads over the years that have. You say but ive got black mates reply everyone says that ,oh the black mates card. Honestly its not worth it i just wanted to explain the reason posts like this do not encourage debate and im not getting drawn into it but will watch with interest." Most of the comments have been off topic. In some cases aggressively
I'm not sure why it's so hard to focus on the actual topic.
In the end, most people seem to have agreed with the OP despite having argued vociferously. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country? When someone makes a statement like "discrimination happens everyday to me", rest of the world will not accept it immediately. You have to prove it. On the caste subject, when one person scores 90 and another scores 80, the one who scored 90 should get the job. Instead, the one who scored 80 gets the job even though he is richer than the one who scored 90. If you think that's fair, I don't have anything to argue about it. The person who got the job by scoring just 80 is undeserving. People do get lazy because of quotas. Why work too hard to score 90 when a 70 can get you through? Are you saying a woman who gets into a problem with her husband, misuses the anti-dowry law to put her husband and his parents in jail eventually resulting in that family's suicide is fair game because women were discriminated badly in the past? Check out the documentary "martyrs of marriage" made by an Indian female lawyer who found out the stupidity of that law. Answer to historic discrimination is not more discrimination to compensate for it. You said that you never claimed that Britain is systematically racist then you go on to complain about pay gap. Anyway, I understand maths and I very well know what regression analysis means. You are the one who seems to use half bakes internet knowledge to make wrong claims. The calculations are there for the world to see. On ethnicity and fields where they shine, it has a lot more to do with the cultural dynamics than where they are "expected to excel at". Majority of Indians in India and Chinese in China also have the same characteristics. Most people try to get into engineering and medicine than into arts and sports. Why do you think India as a country with such a huge population struggles to win a single gold in Olympics? Indian parents influence their children's minds right from the beginning. They try their best to direct them into professional courses rather than pursuing arts and sports. Most people don't care about arts and sports. Again, remove your "oppressor vs oppressed" glasses and you will get a more realistic view of the world. This "And again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You experienced descriminatiin once in your lifetime and got over it? It's a shame but imagine that happening weekly or daily? Would you be so resilient. So for the quota system you are saying that despite there being a far greater number of lower caste candidates in India, there were enough educated adequately to do these jobs adequately? Again, why weren't there enough adequately educated low cStw Indian citizens? Is there equality of opportunity? What "the movement"? Because one group of people protesting something are violent then the matter should stop being discussed and it stops being a problem to resolve? You do understand that Indians are not the only Asians and that Asian is not the only minority ethnicity don't you? Well done ignoring everything I wrote about the Ons figures and just repeating your interpretation. Again the "adjustment" does not mean that they are paid the same for education or experience. It's an averaged regression so one or two factors can bias the overall outcome. A higher proportion working in well paid professions but inividually earning less than their peers will give that result. I have seen discrimination against me on a silly matter once. I have seen worse matters of positive discrimination multiple times. A girl's m*lestor escaping without punishment because of his caste is many times worse than what I experienced. If it happens everyday, my views will change. But it didn't happen everyday and there is no evidence that it happens everyday. Both Math and logic are taking a serious beating today. It there are 100 seats, assuming that upper caste is 20% population. Even if everyone does similarly well, ideally there must be 20 upper caste and 80 lower caste people getting the seats. But in the above scenario, only 8 upper caste people and 92 lower caste people get it. 12 of them are not-deserving. You are trying to over-simplify something that's complicated. People in different towns/cities have preferences in different types of jobs and education based on the industries around them. Each city/town has a cluster of people from specific caste. This means there will be cases where a particular University has very high demand from one caste but not the other. This makes even more undeserving candidates getting in. Then there is this domino effect. An upper caste person by default has to assume that even losing a single mark is going to lose him a seat and works hard for it. For a lower caste person, as they are over-represented, they don't have such higher targets. In every step from high school to getting a job, they don't have to put in as much hard work as others. I can go on and on about it. I can go on and on about it. But you have to visit the government offices to see effects of positive discrimination. India even tried positive discrimination with women on dowry cases. The law didn't last for two years because women started misusing it to take revenge on men, resulting in many men committing suicide. People from minorities are not good people by default. There are assholes in every group. Any law that discriminates, positively or negatively will result in negative consequences. So if one group of people become violent, we should not assume the movement has a problem. But they were representing the movement, didn't they. Even if it is a valid argument, one can also say if one group of people boo, it doesn't make the entire country racist. The average also takes occupation into account. So a bunch of people alone working in well paid occupation argument doesn't make sense here. My point is, if Britain is a racist country that systematically supports white people everywhere, how did Asians end up making more money for the same job and same level of experience? Why is there a disproportionate representation of black people in football clubs? Why is there a disproportionate representation of Asians in healthcare and IT sector? Anyone who has actually met enough people from these background can see that it's a cultural reflection. People from different cultures are specifically inclined towards specific types of careers. Asians are more inclined to take tech or healthcare than others. The result is that they are over-represented. People are not machines made out of same specs. Cultures are different. There will always be some difference in stats when grouped by culture. If the country discriminates based on race, no race would have overtaken white people in any positive stats. The Asians just did that proving your hypothesis wrong. The amount of effort required to understand your replies that wander so far from the point being discussed makes the activity of little use. For many people, descrimination happens everyday, so they do not want to wait quietly and patiently for a change. A statistic of any sort is just that. The lived experience of I dividuals is different to what an averaged statistic tells you. So India has "under-educated" and "undeserving" people from lower castes getting jobs? The employment quotas do not explain why they cannot get the appropriate education. They just don't want to qualify and apply for better paid jobs? Lower caste people also become lazy because getting a job in India is so easy due to quotas? That is also an attitude and view of the world that I do not want to get into. Women also abusing laws brought into protect them? Amazing how these groups are unable to behave appropriately and take advantage of a situation unlike their "betters". I never said that Britain was a systematically racist country did I? You have, as many people do, not read my original post and chosen to have an argument about a totally different subject bringing in a whole range of assumptions that ha e nothing to do with the case in point. Having lectured me on failed maths and logic you are, weirdly, ignoring again how the regression analysis and small data set work and have repeated again that I dian and Chinese earn more with similar qualifications and experience. The calculation does not te you that. Yawn for everyone else. You still don't get that no - Indian Asians are amongst the worst paid? Their are more black football players and athletes because it is one of the few areas of society where they are expected to excel. Do you really not know that? Do you think that British Asians and Chinese and black peoe do not want to be and are incapable of being artists and actors and a whole range of other careers too? So your conclusion, again is that there is no discrimination in this country? When someone makes a statement like "discrimination happens everyday to me", rest of the world will not accept it immediately. You have to prove it. On the caste subject, when one person scores 90 and another scores 80, the one who scored 90 should get the job. Instead, the one who scored 80 gets the job even though he is richer than the one who scored 90. If you think that's fair, I don't have anything to argue about it. The person who got the job by scoring just 80 is undeserving. People do get lazy because of quotas. Why work too hard to score 90 when a 70 can get you through? Are you saying a woman who gets into a problem with her husband, misuses the anti-dowry law to put her husband and his parents in jail eventually resulting in that family's suicide is fair game because women were discriminated badly in the past? Check out the documentary "martyrs of marriage" made by an Indian female lawyer who found out the stupidity of that law. Answer to historic discrimination is not more discrimination to compensate for it. You said that you never claimed that Britain is systematically racist then you go on to complain about pay gap. Anyway, I understand maths and I very well know what regression analysis means. You are the one who seems to use half bakes internet knowledge to make wrong claims. The calculations are there for the world to see. On ethnicity and fields where they shine, it has a lot more to do with the cultural dynamics than where they are "expected to excel at". Majority of Indians in India and Chinese in China also have the same characteristics. Most people try to get into engineering and medicine than into arts and sports. Why do you think India as a country with such a huge population struggles to win a single gold in Olympics? Indian parents influence their children's minds right from the beginning. They try their best to direct them into professional courses rather than pursuing arts and sports. Most people don't care about arts and sports. Again, remove your "oppressor vs oppressed" glasses and you will get a more realistic view of the world. This
And again " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
