Blah Blah

I'm sorry ED Bird, but I have to call you out a little on that post. You are making assumptions about people you have never met. You have know way of knowing what any of us has or has not done to combat and call out racism (in all its forms). Yes, debates can become polarised, usually due to the intolerance of strongly opposing sides to listen to each other, and really listen. The way to cut through that is to not react to it. In my experience, most people with strong views can be talked down to a sensible tone with some patience. And for the record, here is an example of something I once had to deal with. Two decades ago, I worked somewhere that employed around 40 people. They had just one black employee (their first ever). He was new, and on the usual 3 month entry probation. He was well liked by staff and clients alike. At the end of that probation, he was told by the manager he would not be kept because 'he didn't fit in'. That was the kind of bs that black people faced every day (and probably do still in many places). Happily though, all the staff got together and the clients came on board too and forced the manager to reverse that decision. 20 years later and that kid is now the manager and that place is better for it. THAT is what can happen when white people challenge the racism of other white people. So you see, some of us have always had our eyes open to it and more than that, have stepped up to do something about it, in our own small way.

It's a long article. How am I supposed to know which parts you are referring to? What you agree with and what you reject? There is a long list of black people dying at the hands of Police. Every time it happens, change is demanded, accountability is demanded, and nothing changes. When cases are brought, the officers are always acquitted. Will that be different this time? Why would anyone think it will be? And when all that is done, whose fault is it? The Police Force, the Law, the government, or the education, parenting and culture of the person who snuffed out yet another life in their custody? Go to any football terrace (well not at the moment obviously) and you will hear racist chants. It IS systematic, but it is also deeply ingrained in sizeable parts of our culture, and we ARE collectively responsible for doing something about that.

Nope, that article is the view of the writer. And he twists the intent and meaning of other people's words with it, which is why he aligns a factually correct statement from Nigella Lawson, with white shaming. Worse than that, the writer seems to not understand why there is offence caused in 'latent' (or casual) racism. I could address every nonsensical point made by him. He just comes across as yet another white male struggling with the concept of ethnicity and power. And just to add, that the killing of George is not just about him and four white police officers. It is every black person that has been killed or beaten by over zealous white police officers who were never held accountable. Racists won't listen to black people who tell them they are being racist. Therefore it is up to people they will listen to, to tell them that. When James Cordon says ?This is our problem to solve?, this is why he is saying it.

But you are still being nuanced. Social pressure exists in many forms. Some people cave in to it, others don't. So that is very much an individual matter, linked often to issues around self esteem. As for social media, most people just don't see the point in wasting time arguing with armchair bullies. There are better ways to spend ones time and campaign for change. It would help I think if you gave an actual example of 'uber progressive' language, and how that leaves someone feeling they can not air their view. Otherwise all of this is a bit vague to be honest. The discussion needs detail and examples.

The problem is Cat, that you have alluded to open discussion being suppressed from white people, but haven't given a single example and I would still like you to list just who has been stopped from airing views on social media. Because as far as I can see, those who have been banned from SM are extremists who peddle nonsense like 'The Great Replacement' and other racist conspiracy rubbish. You are very good at skirting around what you would really like to say. So let's cut to the chase eh? ;)

All of the same arguments were levied at previous stages of mobile development and have been shown to be unfounded. The use of electromagnetic radio frequencies has been in play for decades. We all use TV/Radio and mobile phones.

I am curious to know who exactly TheCat is thinking of when arguing that some people have been taken down on social media for expressing views around this subject ;)

This is an article from the US from three years ago, but all of its content remains relevant today. https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2017/07/24/10-examples-that-prove-white-privilege-exists-in-every-aspect-imaginable/ Sixty percent of the US population are white Caucasian. So why are other ethnic groups so disproportionately impacted by everything?

TheCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems you have a different definition of > privilege than Janaya Khan (co founder of black > lives matter), who says that?"Privilege isn't > about what you've gone through; it's about what > you haven't had to go through." I am mystified as to how you can conclude that by anything I wrote. Read my post again. It was a valid point on the historical development of entrenched privilege and why it is so hard to compete with. If however you want to debate a quote by Janaya Khan instead, that is fine (I agree with her point too btw). Just don't conflate that with anything I have not actually said ;) > So, surely by everyone being involved in the > dialogue (rather than white people being > #MUTEDBUTLISTENING...or #SILENCED depending on > your viewpoint) means minorities can be elevated > so that no one has to 'go through' it...so no one > loses their privilege, just some people gain > it..... But that ignores the central point I made about self preserving entrenchment of class based privilege. That exists. Those who have most never want to give any of it up. If they did, there would be no Monarchy, no public schools, no institution of any sort that rewards people by the luck of who they are born to. Yes we can have detailed debates about that, but none of that changes the inequalities caused by that entrenchment of privilege. There was a documentary a little while ago that looked at the struggles of Black graduates entering into certain professions, like law, the city etc. All the data shows that black students can go to the same colleges as their white middle/ upper class counterparts, do better in their final results, but fail to be as successful as those counterparts in being recruited to top city firms etc. THAT is an example of white privilege self preserving. It seeks to preserve its own class culture. This is precisely why BAME/ working class/ Women etc struggle to climb ladders and break glass ceilings. And when they do, it because they can play the game, become like those whose club they are allowed into. It rarely changes the other way round.

The answer to your question TheCat is in the role that class, money, opportunity, and history, plays in privilege. In most societies, that is owned by a small percentage of the dominant ethnic group and/or in some societies, the dominant cultural group. The issue with Imperialism and Empire, is a historical legacy of that being turned upside down in 'acquired' colonies by a minority group who exploit the rest. This is where the legacy of white privilege finds its roots, with people of other ethnic groups being the ones exploited most. Black people understand this perfectly. So do many white people. And you state, quite rightly, that those who benefit from white privilege need to be part of the solution. However, why would they be incentivised to do anything that compromises the privilege they enjoy? Most of them can't even acknowledge the privilege they enjoy over other white people, let along think they should do anything to level the playing field. Privilege is a self preserving construct. This is why very little actually changes in the social order until it is forced to do so.

Which is the point I was making. All that has changed is the number of people infected, and therefore the level of spread. The way the virus behaves once it infects a person, and the percentages of those infected that need ICU care and/or die has not changed. So keeping that R number down is really important, and what happens there is what will drive government policy moving forward. The world is in a much better place of understanding of this virus than it was five months ago. That means navigating a sensible way forward should be possible.

They have stopped listening to the experts it seems.

Electromagnetic fields have always existed. We would have no tv or radio without them.

Let's see where we are in four weeks time. Let's see where we are in the Autumn when other seasonal pathogens and bacteria have everyone coughing and sneezing. The government has clearly decided that it can switch to a regional model of containment (even though it has no app up and running as yet and is relying entirely on contact tracing compliance). In countries that do operate regional containment, they have community led teams, with experience in epidemics, that focus on local suppression. My worry is that the government are relying on a centralised model. Bear in mind that it takes around two weeks for any significant increase in that R number to show itself. The risk of infection is currently 1 in 1000, compared to 1 in 40 at the peak. BUT the level of infectiousness and mortality has not changed. While the overall management strategy can change, it can only do so if the public understands that differential, and continues to exercise the things that work, like social distancing and avoidance of enclosed spaces.

Have you ddboy? Any idea how tedious it is to see civil and interesting conversations being derailed by cries of 'RED FLAG' playground sneers? Give it a rest eh?

dbboy - Your responses say more about you than they do about anyone else. Address the valid points being made. Resorting to silly playground sneers undermines any point you are trying to make. If Labour were the government, they too would be scrutinised in exactly the same way. Also acknowledge that a FPTP electoral system does not accurately reflect the way people vote. We would need a PR system for that. And under a PR system, you would in fact find that most people who voted (bear in mind a third of the electorate did not), voted for other parties and not the government. This is also precisely why both main parties have never supported any move to switch to PR. Why move away from an electoral system that delivers absolute power without the need for a majority of the electorate to vote for you? So offering any GE result as some kind of mandate for a majority of people is nonsense.

Yes and another story of a day out emerging too. Cummings still won't go unless pushed though and personally, I don't think Johnson has the balls to fire him. So be it on his head when the opposition play this for all it is worth.

Any defense of Cummings here is clutching at straws. He is a hypocrite, and those defending him are also hypocrites. He is a highly paid government official. He could have paid for his child to be transported anywhere. And he didn't just merely go and drop the child off. He was seen playing with the child in his parent's back garden. He did all this knowing he had the virus. Not only did he break the rules, he put his parents at risk. This is a man that sits in on SAGE meetings for goodness sake. He is a control freak and Johnson is so reliant on him that he can not get rid of him. You have to ask, just who is the real PM?

The whole Cummings scandal is turning into a farce. He has to go but he won't. Johnson is standing by him. That pretty much sums up who is in power.

Cummings has to resign, but he won't.

Boris U-turned, and it WAS a U-turn, because of pressure from a good chunk of his own MPs. Obfuscating about that, instead of calling it what it is, is part of the problem with political discourse.

As usual, Uncle doesn't address a single point being made but goes on another predictable 'everyone is a lefty' rant.

Being offered advice by science and choosing whether to take it, are two different things. Government is engaged in balancing public health vs economy and given that different political parties have different views on what matters most within an economy, it is only logical to argue that a different party or different leadership for that matter, may have had a different approach. Whether or not that would have led to different outcomes is unknowable. Boris himself said in an interview that he did not take the virus seriously enough in the beginning. HE said that. He also said that getting in and almost dying is what made him realise he was wrong. That is pretty clear for everyone to comprehend. We have the highest death toll in Europe for a reason. We need to understand why. My view is this. We have been impacted in exactly the same ways as every country that failed to respond fast enough in the beginning. We are seeing the same trajectories as everywhere else, with the same spread of age and demographic impact. There is only one differential. The speed and extent of response between countries. Lives absolutely could have been saved with an earlier response and better preparation. At the same time, lives absolutely were saved by the speed with which the NHS was geared up. But that all should have happened earlier. Lack of national stocks of PPE (something that should be in place at all times) absolutely lies at this government's door. They directed funding away from maintaining those supplies into no deal Brexit preparations. There is no getting away from that.

Again,. it just boils down to consideration doesn't it? When we last did noisy DIY, we liaised with our neighbours to find time slots that least impacted them. One had just had a new baby, the other worked shifts. It was not hard to do and we were able to find times when both were out. We even were given some nice wine for our consideration, and then invited them round to drink it :D. Life is much better when you get along with people, it really is.

Even with PPE, conditions won't be ideal. Dentists often never stop, esp if treating NHS patients where they are time limited, and PPE is hot and uncomfortable to work in. This is why tests that deliver results in minutes (be they antigen or viral) are needed asap. It is the ability of asymptomatic and incubating infected people to shed the virus that makes all of this very complicated. I think there needs to be some expert guidance on this to develop a policy for moving forward. We need dental treatment, even just the six month checkups, for good reason.