Its a minefield...

[Sephiroth]

" so-called far-right "

just keeps giving

Glen - are you saying they weren't far-right? It's a confection?

Like - what would people ACTUALLY have to do for you consider then to be genuinely far-right?

[diable rouge]

Giving Nazi salutes around the Cenotaph isn't far-right enough for Unk...

[Blah Blah]

Uncle thinks the DFLA hooligans needed to be set up to start a brawl too! I think he needs to look at the protest history of the DFLA/ EDL/ FLA (they all attract the same old firm footie hooligans). They are incapable of peaceful protest and always have been.

[KidKruger]

The Nazi Party were actually liberals, it was just their name which misled people into thinking they were actually Nazis, didn?t you know ?!

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Giving Nazi salutes around the Cenotaph isn't

> far-right enough for Unk...

[JohnL]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And does anyone, apart from me, consider that the

> cops shirked their duty and deliberately ignored,

> and even justified in some cases, the criminal

> damage and the tearing down of statues in order

> that the so-called far-right would be dragged into

> the mayhem and the spotlight would then be on them

> the following week?

It was the weekend that England vs Croatia was supposed to be happening for the first England match in Euro 2020.

I think the yobs had already planned to be in London and to cause trouble but the statue thing made a good excuse.

[uncleglen]

They weren't yobs- there were ex-servicemen there too. The ones shouting in the face of the cops were probably telling them they should be doing the job they are paid to do (but I expect if you confine your newsfeed to left drivel you wouldn't have seen any of 'the other side'.

You would do well to watch this video- don't forget to note that the interviewee has studied African American studies at uni....

And in the words of Harry Bosch 'Everybody matters, or nobody matters' And while you are down on one knee you could kiss the aris of George Soros...

[KidKruger]

Ex-servicemen can?t be yobs ?

Right.

[Blah Blah]

There were very few ex servicemen there, and the ones that were there were embarrassed to have anything to do with the hooligans.

Oh and FYI Uncle, these yobs were attacking people, including anyone with a camera. About 100 of them broke away to attack the small BLM rally in Trafalgar Square. Maybe you would like to see footage of all of that instead? 100 arrests, and the Police are looking for about 20 others. It's all on youtube.

[diable rouge]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They weren't yobs

No, just Nazi saluting thugs, I guess in your racist thug world that's normal acceptable behaviour

> And in the words of Harry Bosch 'Everybody

> matters, or nobody matters'

Ironic seeing racists/Islamophobes spout lines like this, in you racist/Islamophobic world nobody matters except your own race/religion

> And while you are down

> on one knee you could kiss the aris of George

> Soros...

And an anti-Jewish trope to finish it off. Classy.

Keep 'em coming Unk, do as Uncle Steve says...

[malumbu]

Well on the positive side those of you with issues about BLM etc have a football team to support.....

Timely press release by Burnley FC condemning the White Lives Matters stunt tonight https://www.burnleyfootballclub.com/news/2020/june/club-statement/ But what on earth possesses anyone to spend that sort of money anyway on their backward beliefs.

[Sephiroth]

? But what on earth possesses anyone to spend that sort of money anyway on their backward beliefs.?

On the 4th anniversary of the Brexit vote, a timely question

[TheCat]

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....

[JohnL]

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.

[Spartacus]

However John, and playing devils advocate here, does stating "Welsh lives matter" highlight that they are a different cultural group to everyone else whereas using an all inclusive slogan remove diversity by saying everyone is equal ?

The argument for and against both slogans are complex and dangerous and I just hope that we get to a balance point soon where everyone treats each other equally

[TheCat]

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).

[j.a.]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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....

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have just one other thing to say, and I promised myself I'd only do one post on here then log out.

Uncle Glen - you say that yobs and former service personnel couldn't be the same thing. I don't know if you're na?ve, stupid or lying, but you obviously have no experience of the forces. Well, I do. You're wrong. Very, very wrong. I'm not going to go into detail, but you are basically making it up, I reckon. I won't be wasting any more breath on you, except to say that you live in some kind of fantasy world.

[Sephiroth]

+1 j.a.

[pk]

that's good j.a.

thanks for posting

[Blah Blah]

Excellent post j.a.

My own view is that to be offended by the slogan 'black lives matter', over understanding why black people are using it in the context of protest, is itself a display of latent racism. Because what actually offends that person, is that black people are asserting their experiences and seeking to change something. It comes from exactly the same place as the perception that ethnic minorities are treated better than their white counterparts.

I watched a sky documentary about George Floyd which shows all the camera footage from the moment shop workers confront him about the use of fake notes, to the lifting of his limp (and obviously dead) body by paramedics onto an ambulance stretcher. It is the viewing of a murder. What strikes me is the abject lack of empathy in the face of the Police Officer suffocating him to death. It is not hard to see why any black person would see that lack of empathy as a racist response. Whatever the truth of that, he was a Police Officer who overreacted to the complaint of an already handcuffed man, and did so without any consideration for the life and wellbeing of George Floyd.

I then watched a documentary about Sandra Bland. And once again, what is seen is a Police Officer who overreacts and abuses his powers, because a black woman dares to answer him back.

Racism isn't always overt. It often is just that small difference in response to attitude that tips the balance one way or the other. Black people see this every time it happens.

When the now Prime Minister calls Africans 'piccaninnies with water melon smiles', that matters. That he got away with it so lightly, also matters.

That we also try to whitewash history of racism also matters. Churchill WAS a racist. We should be able to have a sensible conversation about that while at the same time acknowledging his leadership during WW2.

So for me, what 'black lives matter' conveys, is that those experiences at the hands of racism, be it overt OR casual, matter. That should be a simple enough concept for anyone to grasp and agree with.

[TheCat]

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.

[Blah Blah]

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?

[TheCat]

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....

[Blah Blah]

But that activist organisation IS black people, and as such they have every right to express themselves as they wish. The two are not separable. The only obsessive person here on that is YOU. Black lives matter is not a difficult concept to understand, so why is the onus for black activists to change their slogan? You have willfully ignored my point too that those who take offense to it, do so deliberately. You know perfectly well why they do. THAT is what needs challenging. Not a simple slogan that any five year old could grasp the meaning of.

[TheCat]

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

[pk]

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