Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting
Comments
-
I saw a BLM supporter on Sky News today saying they wanted a 'cultural revolution'. Poor choice of words or simply the truth?0
-
I quite admired the singular lack of self awareness by the US police forces who "kettled" crowds until after the local curfew time, then ticketed them for being out after the curfew.john80 said:The police often take a third method to crowd control when they are outnumbered. Push protestors to somewhere they can do the least damage. Film their actions and then pay them a visit the next day. I am always surprised by the number who think they wont get a visit after they have damaged stuff.
0 -
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...0 -
It's like a professional foul in football, isn't it?0
-
People always use that as an example of why representative democracy is better than direct democracy, but I think if there was a referendum on the subject the campaign would influence people's views beyond their immediate reaction when polled.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...0 -
For me, random censorship is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole issue.DeVlaeminck said:Pross said:When someone mentioned who would be next I almost mentioned Baden-Powell and then on the news this morning it was reported his statue in Poole is to be taken down.
Sad but apparently for its own protection as they believe it was going to be attacked.
The list of TV programmes and films that has been removed from netflix is quite long - who thought Little Britain was racist - Chris Lilley has been pulled etc.
Books are sure to be next. All a bit frightening when one thinks how this has happened before in....................history."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.2 -
It is a good example, though. Another one would be holding a referendum on EU membership! Also, maybe campaigning would have changed some minds about keeping statues.TheBigBean said:
People always use that as an example of why representative democracy is better than direct democracy, but I think if there was a referendum on the subject the campaign would influence people's views beyond their immediate reaction when polled.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...0 -
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That doesn't make sense.coopster_the_1st said:
For someone who lives in a society where sectarian mob justice is a stain on the place that you live, you are either a member of one of the mob justice groups or a raging hypocritetailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...0 -
I mean, there weren't many objections from the 'protect history' lot when the gov't was literally destroying records of crimes committed in the final years of the British Empire.0
-
Not wishing to steal his thunder, but I believe rjsterry will be along shortly to award you the highly coveted whataboutery honour.rick_chasey said:I mean, there weren't many objections from the 'protect history' lot when the gov't was literally destroying records of crimes committed in the final years of the British Empire.
3 -
It's a big world and I'm not sure GB is even rioting. Plus, I'm fairly sure you would prefer rioting to kneecapping.tailwindhome said:
In fairness, we're the only country in the world not having riots.TheBigBean said:
I thought you would oppose mob justice given its prevalence in your neck of the woodstailwindhome said:How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?
0 -
I was being facetiousTheBigBean said:
It's a big world and I'm not sure GB is even rioting. Plus, I'm fairly sure you would prefer rioting to kneecapping.tailwindhome said:
In fairness, we're the only country in the world not having riots.TheBigBean said:
I thought you would oppose mob justice given its prevalence in your neck of the woodstailwindhome said:How hard would it be just to say, that a statute celebrating a slave trader isn't how we want to remember our past or the vision we have for our public spaces in the 21st century and they should be taken down, without deflecting into discussions on trainers, phones and whatnot?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!2 -
That is some nice work right there. I wonder if the get a commission on the fines.kingstongraham said:
I quite admired the singular lack of self awareness by the US police forces who "kettled" crowds until after the local curfew time, then ticketed them for being out after the curfew.john80 said:The police often take a third method to crowd control when they are outnumbered. Push protestors to somewhere they can do the least damage. Film their actions and then pay them a visit the next day. I am always surprised by the number who think they wont get a visit after they have damaged stuff.
0 -
There was a excellent thread on Twitter explaining police strategy in the clip described as the 'police running away', I'm paraphrasing but essentially it's to create space between them and the protesters, de-escalate the situation, give the police the chance to reset their lines and cause the crowd to reassess it's own behavior. You'll see how this plays out as the clip continues as members of the protest attempt to intervene and calm their group down.nickice said:
it looks like, from the footage at least, that the police have backed off from rioters and even run away. In other words, not doing much. This is what, we're assuming, you are proud of.tailwindhome said:
Nothing in my post suggests I think that.ballysmate said:
Why do you think the only 2 options for the police were to do nothing or beat the censored out of people?tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
Try reading it again.
You then make the link that people who say 'do something' means they want the police to beat people up. If there was a more nuanced meaning to what you were saying, it wasn't really apparent.
Police de-escalation doesn't give Coopster the head cracking he has the horn for, but limits the damage to property and person that can arise when the situation gets truly out of hand.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1 -
I wouldn't put it back up but i don't approve of mobs deciding which are next to be torn down going forward.rick_chasey said:
Given the choice, would you put the statue back up or not?shortfall said:
Now that's a good strawman. Well done.morstar said:
So, most of us (certainly everyone posting on an Internet forum) benefits from goods that involve cheap / exploited labour.shortfall said:
I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.rjsterry said:
Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.shortfall said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.rjsterry said:
I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.shortfall said:
I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.kingstongraham said:
Where do you stand on child labour?shortfall said:
It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.rjsterry said:
Have another whataboutery sticker.shortfall said:
If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?Jeremy.89 said:Why does one have to preclude the other?
And yet somehow possession of such goods can be used as some sort of collective adjective to define this ‘mob’.
It’s almost like people are looking for a means to generalise the people involved in a negative way that is separate from their actual behaviour.
If only there was a distinguishing characteristic that could be used...2 -
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.0 -
OK, Coopstercoopster_the_1st said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-53002948tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
This is what scum like you and RC are supporting and promoting with your anarchistic views.
You are allowing the feral in society to think they are above the law. You are as scummy as those attacking the police“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
You can see why this instance it was a bit different, right? Now you're a bit more aware of the local context.shortfall said:
I wouldn't put it back up but i don't approve of mobs deciding which are next to be torn down going forward.rick_chasey said:
Given the choice, would you put the statue back up or not?shortfall said:
Now that's a good strawman. Well done.morstar said:
So, most of us (certainly everyone posting on an Internet forum) benefits from goods that involve cheap / exploited labour.shortfall said:
I'm not making a direct comparison as well you know, I'm saying it's easy for people to make value judgements on past behaviours whilst being (wilfully) blind to some of the terrible things going on around us today that they could actually change or not support simply by changing their shopping habits. Most of us own consumer goods that are made in sweat shops and I am simply saying that we would do well to look at ourselves before excusing mobs who tear down statues of people from history. And you're right I don't know a great deal about Bristol and Colston other than what I've read up on since recent events took place. I do know enough to say though that if you allow a mob to decide on what should be agreed by a democratic process whilst the police stand idly by then it won't end well.rjsterry said:
Who are you referring to here, and how are you determining whether they buy fast fashion or not? If you don't know anything about Colston or Bristol, that's fine, but don't pretend the transatlantic slave trade is remotely comparable to modern clothing production.shortfall said:
I don't disagree, but I'm not about to take lectures on exploitation from people who buy fast fashion in the certain knowledge that it's produced by children and poor people in dreadful conditions and poverty wages.rjsterry said:
I'll give you a clue: Nike do not abduct hundreds of thousands of people from one continent, brand them with the 'swoosh' and ship them to another continent, chucking the dead ones over the side. That's how you can tell them apart.shortfall said:
I'm conflicted on it because it's a complex issue as you know, but I'm not the one wearing Nike trainers whilst tearing down statues on the grounds that they celebrated racists and slavers and neither am I finding excuses fire those that did.kingstongraham said:
Where do you stand on child labour?shortfall said:
It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out to self righteous liberals that having a conscience about things that happened centuries ago is easier than holding yourself to the same standard today. FWIW I'm not going to die on a hill defending every statue in the land, although I'm not happy that it's left to mob rule to decide which ones are fair game to get chucked in the sea.rjsterry said:
Have another whataboutery sticker.shortfall said:
If this is a question about Nike and Apple then surely it's about being consistent? If you agree with pulling down Slaver statues then how can you buy trainers in good conscience if you know they've been made by children working long hours in horrible conditions?Jeremy.89 said:Why does one have to preclude the other?
And yet somehow possession of such goods can be used as some sort of collective adjective to define this ‘mob’.
It’s almost like people are looking for a means to generalise the people involved in a negative way that is separate from their actual behaviour.
If only there was a distinguishing characteristic that could be used...
0 -
Fair enough but it looked more like they were emboldened by the police running.tailwindhome said:
There was a excellent thread on Twitter explaining police strategy in the clip described as the 'police running away', I'm paraphrasing but essentially it's to create space between them and the protesters, de-escalate the situation, give the police the chance to reset their lines and cause the crowd to reassess it's own behavior. You'll see how this plays out as the clip continues as members of the protest attempt to intervene and calm their group down.nickice said:
it looks like, from the footage at least, that the police have backed off from rioters and even run away. In other words, not doing much. This is what, we're assuming, you are proud of.tailwindhome said:
Nothing in my post suggests I think that.ballysmate said:
Why do you think the only 2 options for the police were to do nothing or beat the censored out of people?tailwindhome said:To be honest the UK should be quite proud of how their police handled the riots over the past couple of days, though I fear people who ask, 'Why didn't they do something?' really mean 'why didn't they beat the censored out of them?'
Try reading it again.
You then make the link that people who say 'do something' means they want the police to beat people up. If there was a more nuanced meaning to what you were saying, it wasn't really apparent.
Police de-escalation doesn't give Coopster the head cracking he has the horn for, but limits the damage to property and person that can arise when the situation gets truly out of hand.0 -
It does seem rather likely that there are going to be bunch of fights in London around a bunch of statues i suspect.
Lots of football hooligan type organisations going down to london on the weekend to 'protect' a bunch of statues, and presumably a bunch of 'demonstrators' looking for the next statue to go after.0 -
I wouldn't be spending my time defending a statue but the police didn't do their job in Bristol and these are the consequences. When the state doesn't do its duty to protect property, other more vicious (and let's face it thuggish) people step into the void.rick_chasey said:It does seem rather likely that there are going to be bunch of fights in London around a bunch of statues i suspect.
Lots of football hooligan type organisations going down to london on the weekend to 'protect' a bunch of statues, and presumably a bunch of 'demonstrators' looking for the next statue to go after.0 -
Caffè Nero surely has to change its name?0
-
I wonder how many are actually interested in the statues.rick_chasey said:It does seem rather likely that there are going to be bunch of fights in London around a bunch of statues i suspect.
Lots of football hooligan type organisations going down to london on the weekend to 'protect' a bunch of statues, and presumably a bunch of 'demonstrators' looking for the next statue to go after.0 -
People disagreed strongly with slavery at the time, too. Wesley was almost a contemporary of Colston (born when the latter was in his 60s) and the Methodists were strongly anti slavery and very prominent in Bristol. Colston banned nonconformists from his school.nickice said:
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.
The statue itself was set up after the trade was made illegal, so presumably at least some of the Viictorians thought it was wrong as well.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
But at the time they put it up was there strong objection to it and was it not put up to honour what he had done for the town rather than his involvement in the slave trade?rjsterry said:
People disagreed strongly with slavery at the time, too. Wesley was almost a contemporary of Colston (born when the latter was in his 60s) and the Methodists were strongly anti slavery and very prominent in Bristol. Colston banned nonconformists from his school.nickice said:
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.
The statue itself was set up after the trade was made illegal, so presumably at least some of the Viictorians thought it was wrong as well.0 -
I think there is a difference between characters such as BP or Churchill who are recognised for what they achieved whilst holding views that don’t meet today’s standards and somebody whose primary achievement was making money through slavery.nickice said:
You don't see fuss about that because they're not smashing up the bus shelter because they don't think it should be there.rjsterry said:
Yes, it would be better if it had happened this way and similarly for other statues or other public art/memorial. This one didn't happen that way, but there seems no great clamour to put it back (now that people have bothered to read up about what he did) so aside from some minor offences (you don't see this much fuss about some drunks smashing up a bus shelter), we could leave it at that.nickice said:
The only way to actually make it fair then would be to hold a local referendum and allow both sides to put their case to the public.rjsterry said:
Some things, yes. Who should get an anachronistic statue I'm less certain about. I hope we can agree the death penalty is more of a big deal than a bit of civic PR.nickice said:
Up until very recently, the majority supported a return to the death penalty in the UK. Some things are better left in the hands of our elected representatives who may be privy to information we are not. That can lead to delays in getting done what the public wants (though from what I read there was never a majority for removing the statue) though it's much better than any alternatives.rick_chasey said:
Maybe it's just the locals didn't want a statue up and after a campaign was thwarted by obstinate local officials it became a focal point for what was wrong in that particular town re race?ballysmate said:
I am suggesting it is just virtue signalling to remove statues that in the scheme of things, few people actually see but leave a monument to slave owners and racists for the world to see as a tourist attraction.rick_chasey said:
Why not have the discussion on a case by case basis?ballysmate said:I see Nancy Pelosi has got into the virtue signalling game, demanding that statues of Confederate leaders are removed from the Capitol, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.
I posted earlier, somewhat tongue in cheek, that Mount Rushmore should go. But if it is argued that Lee has to go, how can they keep a monument of a man, who owned 600 slaves, looking down on the state of S Dakota? Do Native Americans not find the presence of these 4 Presidents insulting?
But the way things are going, nothing is safe.
How about Muhammad Ali, who espoused the same vile segregation polices of George Wallace?
Has he gotta go?
I think it's not unreasoanble to take a few statues down who are clearly not fit to grace a public space without expecting them all to be taken down.
Are you suggesting not taking any of them down in case you have to take them all down?
.
I understand the virtue signalling argument, and i think you share that with many black activist campaigners too; that it's very easy to be seen to be doing the right thing by making a blackout instagram post or saying something to your mates in the pub, but not actually doing anything about it.
It's often the case in business; I've been on a few diversity committees over the years and almost all of them are quite focused on business development and marketing, and people tend to be very quiet or even resistant when you talk about internal policies and changes in behaviour or practices.
I also get that that is hypocritical, and you would just rather people be honest and not feel they have to be seen to think in a certain way because the morale police say so - and that makes you feel uncomfortable.
I guess what I would say is that is that, in this instance, the symbol is the entire point, so the entire thing is a signal, so I'm not sure the virtual signalling argument applies.
More broadly, I don't have such a clear view on it, but my sense is that it's not necessarily productive or helpful to heavily criticise people who are obviously trying to do the right thing, even if it is signalling - assuming they're doing it in good faith and are not being cynical about it.
What is very deep problem won't be solved overnight, but each little step surely helps. Maybe next time the virtue signaller might think that bit differently, or be more receptive to a different pov, and before you know it, there's been a small positive change.
What I am sceptical of however, is the good faith in the "hypocrisy" argument, as I suspect quite a few actually object to the virtue that is being signalled, rather than the hypocrisy...
It's definitely not erasing history - the statue presented no historical information - and it's definitely not a slippery slope to book burning.
I wouldn't say it was erasing history but I definitely think it's applying today's standards to the past and I really can't think of a statue that actually endorses slavery. If this keeps going we'll end up removing all statues and cities will be the worse for it.
Someone talked about the Jimmy Saville wood carving in Glasgow being taken down but many of his victims were still alive so I think that's fair enough as his victims are mostly still alive. (also, it never would have been put up if his crimes were known about). I felt the same about the statue of Saddam Hussein being destroyed.
0
