TheCat

This one relates to at least 4 films..... Archaeologist looks for archaeological artefacts, and finds them.

Puppet travels cross-country to repair damaged jewellery

3 blokes wake up after stag-do, and cant remember it.

Boxer with poor boxing skills fights a boxing fight, and loses.

Guy realises local disabled man is his father

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a difference between the two though, The > Tory cuts were just that. 'Defund the police' > proposes cutting back on police costs and > redistributing to community projects. I'm not > advocating DTP as I think any cuts to the police > is the last thing we need right now... Yep. Totally agree there's a difference....im just (very unsubtley!) revisting my earlier point on this thread about the effectiveness of slogans in the context of BLM.....and how ineffective some of them are. Given BLM don't 'really' mean 'defund the police', they shouldn't really be surprised when people don't 'get it'!!!

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Successive Tory Govs managed to 'defund the > police' to the tune of 20,000 less police > officers. Just saying... Indeed. And didn't most of the left wing progressives within the Labour party think that was a bad thing?. Strange - given some of them are now attacking Sir Kier (see tweets from Warwick Labour branch for example) for his stance on this

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I worry a little about Sir Kier sitting on the > fence. > > (he was distinguishing BLM (the movement) from BLM > (the organisation) - is that what you have to do > to get near power in the UK you see :(. ) > > However, the fact only right wing newspapers are > reporting this when I search means it could well > be newspaper froth. > > https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/starmer > -caught-in-black-lives-matter-storm/30/06/ I'd be fascinated to hear what people who (self-proclaimed) 'get it'...like DulwichBornandBred think about the slogan 'Defund the Police'???...now that various people (lead by Sir Kier) are backing away from BLM (the organisation) as a result of their use of that slogan... To use logic cited earlier in this thread in response to some of my comments....if this is the language that has been chosen, then I guess you feel it's unreasonable that BLM had to tweet to explain what they 'actually' mean by that phrase.....and it's just those that need 'education' who are 'in denial' of what 'defund the police' 'really' means?

Pie Nails it again....

YES.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lovely BLM advert on Sky News/Sky Sport at the > moment > > > e=youtu.be Rupert Murdoch is a softy at heart:).....

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > KidKruger Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I actually saw a FB post the other day where > > someone had forwarded a post from Leave.EU, > which > > asked the questions "why aren't people all out > > protesting about the stabbings in Reading ?". A > > direct reference to BLM being (I presume) > > unpatriotic / non 'keeping our own shop in > > order'. > > Gobsmacked ! > > but you still think that thecat's doing a good job > here yes? Blimey..even when I'm not even commenting on the thread, you are trying to find ways to slag me off?!? It's getting a bit desperate and pathetic. Let it go pk....let it go...

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only time BLM needs explaining is to those of > them like you refusing to accept their privilege. > Everyone else I know fully understands BLM > including my young child. I have only ever seen > people who are in denial arguing against BLM. So > it?s not the slogan that is the issue, it?s the > people in denial. If only the world was populated with only people you know, then I'm sure we would live in a better place. Unfort it's not. Sephiroth's comment above is actually annoyingly amusing...So fair play to him/her...but unfort the reason why I have had to spend 8 pages trying to make one simple point, is that people like you seemingly refuse to actually acknowledge what I've said...and keep coming back to claiming I have lack of understanding of why Black Lives Matter, and claiming my 'unacceptable opinions' are a result of refusing acknowledge my privilege. So I've spent a few posts attempting to argue my point and re-frame my position (or 'change my slogan' metaphorically speaking!), but it seems to little effect. I personally have no problem with the black lives matter slogan..go and check my posts..I've never said I do..but that's how it's been painted by others (I do have a problem with some of the other language, which Ive referenced in my OP). But it's clear from a whole range of sources that many people do have a problem with it..and it's worthwhile exploring how can we try and address that. I acknowledge and understand the argument that people like yourselves and Blah Blah are making....that this is the language that's been chosen by those most affected, and why should they change it? Perfectly acceptable point of view. But many on here, like yourself, simply refuse to even try to understand what I'm saying around that. And just throw the same tired old tropes back at me, without addressing the specific things I've often said. Hence the 8 pages:) For the final time...I acknowledge the concept of white privilege, I acknowledge that there is a societal problem with racial injustice....I simply think the best way to gain broader support is to change the language around the issue (while still maintaining the integrity of the central tenets of the Blm argument)...I'm not trying to 'silence' anyone. Sure, you may question why the 'oppressed' should have to change their message to appeal to the oppressors...but as I said right at the start...the solution to this societal problem involves everyone, oppressed and oppressors....So you can sit there and throw shade at the people 'in denial' all you like...but it's unlikely to progress you towards your goal in my view.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Because he has white privilege which he is > insulted about because he doesn?t like the term or > any terms Black people come up with and when asked > by me to come up with another term, he couldn?t. > Total white privilege abuse. > If this is the type of dismissive response you have to people who 99% agree with you....I genuinely worry about how you stand a chance of interacting with people that dont.....

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No Cat, all you have done is post links to people > who display the undertones of feeling some threat > to their white identity because black people are > fighting for equality again. Again, I think you're being very disingenuous Blah Blah...'All I have done is post links'....thats a patent untruth. I have posted a few links amongst a myriad of detailed comments...the lions share of which are my own thoughts and make no reference to said links.... Anyway, even if you don't like those links...you once again you ignore the link to the Guardian article...written by a prominent black journalist....basically saying the same thing I am (ytes, from a different perspective, but the conclusion is broadly the same). Shall we dismiss his views as well? Also...posting links to stats verifying what we already agree-on seems a bit odd? You seem to really be struggling with the concept that I agree on the unequal playing field and the injustice...but think the slogans (not specifically BLM...but also things like #mutedbutlistening, white silence is violence, Understand you'll never understand) are not productive in moving the debate forward. You constantly are trying to convince me of what we already agree on!! Finally...What DR said...I dont condone the vindictive use of ALM/WLM in anyway....but if the BLM slogan needs to be constantly explained, then its not doing its job.

Geez you guys are getting desperate to 'score a point' arent you?.....harking back to a couple of links to articles in spiked - amongst reams of other posts I've made on this topic....hilarious. No reference to the Guardian post - which was actually the most recent thing I've linked to? of course not..you cant arrogantly dismiss someone for linking to the Graun!!!! Much easier to just try and shoot down someone saying things you don't like. To be fair, blah blah, you probably warrant the benefit, as for the most part you are at least trying to argue a point (but there's post after post of 'plain english' on what I think - you might do better to explore that)....but pk's contributions are true to his/her long form...just trying to have a crack at people while all the while offering no thoughts of their own.

pk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > yes, I am obsessive about things I feel > strongly > > about. > > and based on your posting it seems you feel more > strongly about the terms being used than about the > underlying systemic issue being protested against And by deleting the next sentence of my post which you quote, it seems you feel more strongly about willfully misinterpreting me, and just having a pop.

yes, I am obsessive about things I feel strongly about. And in this case its finding a way to engage a greater portion of society in this debate, and not feel alienated from it - with a view to improving the lives of minorities. Slogans might make the person shouting them feel good for a moment - but I want to know how they are going to change lives? But you carry on in your world where mild criticism of a few slogans (despite clear agreement on 99% of the issues) in a highly controversial, and multi-faceted topic is branded as 'latent racism'. And everyone else that doesn't fall into line is either racist or not as smart as a five year-old - be fascinated to see how far that gets society. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/11/black-lives-matter-racism-bristol-colston

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You seem to miss the key point Cat. > > 'don't tell them what language they can and can't > use' > > THAT. > > Because that is exactly what you are doing. You > are telling black people that slogans they feel > succinctly convey their cause, aren't helping > their cause (in effect). And you are saying that > because some white people refuse to understand the > concept behind those slogans. The people reacting > with 'all lives matter' and worse still 'white > lives matter' are doing so deliberately. They > don't give a hoot what black people are > complaining about, just that they are complaining. > So how about we challenge those people instead, > instead of finding fault yet again, with how black > people express themselves? Firstly im not finding fault with 'Black People'...I'm finding fault with an activist organisation. They are different. Its not semantics....its an important distinction. Secondly....a different slogan doesn't change the concept...do you want people to understand the concept? or not give you the time of day to make your case? What are these slogans actually for?...to take your line of logic...all black people already understand these concepts without any problem...so the slogans are to get the message to 'other' people. Thirdly...its absolutely anyone's right to use whatever language they want. And its my right to say whatever I want about it. I've obvserved the slogans, listened to the arguments,andseen the reaction...im not blindly abusing anyone...why shouldn't I offer a view? This obsessive need to police who is allowed to say what, about whom and when is also a huge part of the problem....

j.a. Wrote: > > > This is my first post on this forum, and it will > be my only one. I'm making it because I feel the > need to address the points that you've made, > TheCat. > Thanks for your post j.a. But why make it the only one? > I am a middle-aged white man. So are you, I'm > assuming. The language involved is annoying you, > you find it 'divisive and counter productive'. > > Hmmm, ok. Well, I see your point. A lot of people > agree with you, and what I say to that is the > problem with "All Lives Matter" is that it makes a > falsa assumption. > It treats all lives equally - and of course that's > what any reasonable human wants - but it makes the > mistake of believing that we are at that point > now. > > We are not. > > By any measurable standard, black people are not > treated equally in society. That is a simple fact, > and as white people we have to accept it and work > to change it. > > To say that All Lives Matter is to say that all > lives are currently given equal weight and value. I feel you've fallen into the typical mindset here of trying to explain (educate) to me why the term all lives matter is offensive to BLM supporters. I get it. I understand and totally agree with the concept. I really dont need you to explain it to me - we are in 100% agreement on the concept of why we as a society need to focus on the injustice and prejudice of some minority groups, because WE ARE NOT on that equal footing. See how much we AGREE on!!! ? basically everything. My point is that for whatever reason the whole debate around this has become about the bl00dy slogans - if thats not counter-productive, then I dont know what is. > You say that your starting position is that an > overwhelming majority of people are not racist. > Leaving aside the point that I feel you are giving > society too much credit, what you refer to there > (and I accept I'm making an assumption about your > meaning here) is 'overt racism' - the stuff that's > easy to spot and challenge. > But there's a lot more to it than that, isn't > there? Unconscious bias is very dangerous, and > it's everywhere. Unconscious Bias is everywhere ? another thing we AGREE on. But don?t you want the anti-racist movement to actually engage and connect with those people who perhaps aren?t ?overtly racist? but might not fully agree with or understand something like unconscious bias? How are they ever going to reach those people when they?ve turned them off before a conversation has even been had? You make the same point as many of my friends and colleagues?..white people should be made to feel uncomfortable by the debate?.sure?but that?s not the end-game here is it?, wouldn?t you prefer to be pragmatic, rather than needlessly provocative? I understand its tough tightrope to walk ? but if its erring towards scaring away would-be allies by telling them that they should be ?Muted? (for example), then perhaps some self-reflection is required (for the sake of total clarity, so my words don?t get twisted?I don?t mean ?Black people? should self-reflect ? Im mean the specific activist movements at the forefront of this, like BLM) Moreover, the worst thing, in my > view, that happens these days is the reaction of > white people when a black person stands their > ground on a issue. We've all seem it, I'm sure; in > a situation where a white person would be seen as > standing up for themselves, a black person is too > often painted as "angry". Go and ask any black > person you know, they'll tell you I'm right. It's > an incredibly pejorative and frankly abusive > response that essentially, on a subconscious > level, tells a black person not to make a fuss, to > accept what they've been allowed to have. Sure?I don?t think I have anywhere suggested that black people shouldn?t ?make a fuss?. So fair point. But nothing to do with any point I have made. > > I'm trying to get to my point, which is basically > that white people, whether we like it or not, are > going to have to listen to a lot to really > uncomfortable things about race in order for this > conversation to get to a productive point. You > don't like the term white privilege? Well, I'm > sorry about that but it exists, and black people > are entitled to be unhappy about that. I think > (and this is just my opinion) that the best thing > white people can do right now is LISTEN. Listen > and accept that we may be wrong about some > things. We AGREE - that ?white privilege? does exist. Again, no arguments. I just don?t think the name is very helpful ? in the context of points mentioned above. Yes, white people do need to listen. But not only listen. But also need to talk, give views and ask questions. Sure, if a white person is talking and NOT listening, then that?s a problem. But why can we not LISTEN and TALK? Isn?t that how conversation and debate works? > > Look, the black community is not a hive mind, nor > is any community. What one person tells you may be > contradicted by what someone else tells you, but > the important point is to give everyone the space > to describe their experiences and feelings, and > don't tell them what language they can and can't > use. If we do this then we will begin to have an > actual conversation and debate, because we will > understand that everyone involved is listening. > ?but the important point is to give everyone the space to describe their experiences and feelings, and don't tell them what language they can and can't use? ? YES!!!?..so arent I just expressing mine on this thread? so that we can begin to have a conversation? We seemingly agree on quite a lot, so why do I need to completely acquiesce to every soundbite to show evidence of complete ?education? before we can even talk? > As I say, Black Lives Matter is an important > phrase because it is NOT, NOT, NOT about saying > only black lives are important - of course it > isn't - but it's about saying that, thus far, > black lives have not been seen as being as > important as white lives. We all know it's true, > no point pretending it isn't. Again?AGREE. > > I don't feel I've made my point very well, but > I've gone on long enough. I think you want the > same things everyone else does, and I think you > mean well in how you're trying to analyse the > language involved, but as one middle-aged white > man to another, I'd ask you to consider the idea, > as I said earlier, that "All Lives Matter" or any > other phrase that seeks to undermine Black Lives > Matter, works from the false principle that all > lives are considered equal in our world. > > They are not. > > There an awful lot of racists out there still; I'm > reminded of the phrase Gerry Adams used about the > IRA - "they haven't gone away, you know". There's > a huge amount of unpleasant folk who simply don't > like black people. > What is clear here is that we agree on much more than we do not. And I do have faith (perhaps misplaced) that the majority of people broadly agree as a starting point. So rather than continually bludgeon them over the head with the same terms that clearly haven?t engaged them already ? wouldn?t it make more sense to try and convey the same concepts in a different way? Look, this is clearly a very difficult topic to debate online, where all nuance and emphasis is lost! But hopefully this response to your points perhaps sheds a bit more light on my perspective? (or perhaps not!). You mention every person having their own view and not to assume ?hive-mind??I?d ask the same?.I think that whenever someone (well a white, middle-aged man) raises questions like these, many people read what they ?assume? is meant by the words, and what they have seen argued by other people who say similar things ? rather than taking the words that are written in good faith. But anyway, I guess that comes with the territory.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But if (in a hypothetical world dominated by the > English LOL) I said 'Welsh lives matter', the > response is not to say 'British Lives Matter' or > 'English Lives Mattter' it's to say what makes you > think that Welsh lives don't matter and what can > we do about it and what should change. Unfort John...what 'should' or 'shouldnt' happen is a bit of a moot point...the fact is (for probably a long list of complicated reasons) that some of the language turns people off. If you were a marketing exec and came up with a slogan that made thirsty people not want to buy your soft drink....would you realise it wasn't working and do something about it?, or do what most BLM supporters to and double down trying to tell consumers that they need more education on your slogan? (yes yes, I know soft drinks are not racial injustice - but if the goal is to win hearts and minds, then the analogy is fair).

In an attempt to get this thread off football thugs and a potential brexit tangent (there's more than enough threads to argue over brexit).....:) I started this thread talking about the BLM language, and problems associated with language/narrative, which I find divisive and counter productive. In the time since...I've seen very well meaning friends on social media constantly argue with people about semantics of language, and feeling a constant need to 'educate people' on what simple phrases 'really' imply. If you have to constantly 'educate' people that the phrase all lives matter doesn't actually just mean all lives matter, and constantly defend the term 'privilege'...even though the concepts may be very sound...your messaging obviously needs a lot of work. My starting position is that the overwhelming majority of people are NOT rascist. So if you're an anti-racist campaign group...most people already agree with you...should be an easy win. So to get many people's back up about your message seems to be a spectacular own goal. Some may ask why I'm banging on about language when there are bigger issues at play. Well...If the language was more 'inclusive' (ah the irony) then perhaps we wouldn't be constantly debating semantics about phrases, and we could all just agree that we all dont like the idea of a black man being stopped and searched just because he is black....then maybe, just maybe we could engage a larger section of society around pragmatic positive steps....

Already spent it in March on a lifetime's supply of loo roll....

I'll dip my toe in again and see how we go......:) This seems like a bit of a red herring of an argument Sephiroth...Dual standards seems pretty sensible to me....I mean your talking like its an unfathomable logistical exercise for businesses to sell products into different markets with different standards. Of course initially businesses will have to work out where the demand is an adjust production/farming processes accordingly. But businesses all over the world already do this dont they? How is that we can buy US Beef, New Zealand Lamb, Fruit from Morrocco? How do farmers in those market handle different standards? In financial services here in the UK there are different regulations for how you can structure and market financial products/advice for the EU as compared to when one does so for other markets (im aware goods production is slightly more involved than a service - but the point stands). Yes it would be easier to only have to worry about 1 set of standards - but it hardly seems anything close to prohibitive. what am I missing?

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a vegetarian the very idea of eating a horse > repulses me. do they give you the trots?