Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

Pross

I saw an Instagram post over the weekend from an old school friend of mine that I've known for over 35 years. She is one of the, admittedly few, black people I know well and commented what an odd week it had been as she is too black for some and too white for others (black father, white mother). I think she'd been criticised for saying all lives matter but black lives need to matter more than they currently do.

In all the time I've known her the only other time I can really remember her commenting on racism was when she was telling us how, when taking a statement for the accident book at work, her colleague said she had trip on a big, black cable then felt she had to apologise for describing the cable as black!

Maybe her comments do suggest things are becoming more divisive or maybe the whole issue is being driven too much by the fringes and opening up divisions that had been slowly starting to close?

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Just heard a Professor on the BBC news say we've never lived in more divisive times. Now, I don't dispute there is racism and there is still a long way to go before we are anywhere near equal opportunities but it seems like hyperbole to say we've never lived in more divisive times when 40 or 50 years ago people would openly refuse blacks to access their shops / hotels etc.

I think a theory that the amount of common shared political ground between UK citizens is smaller than it has been for a long time is not an unreasonable theory, wouldn’t you say?

I mean, whenever there is an event that aligns with one side of the culture wars, however reasonable or not, the other side *kicks off*.

The guy presumably doesn’t mean most divisive *ever* since, y’know, there was a civil war and stuff, but you get his point.

I'm not convinced. I think it's just that 'normal people' have more of an opportunity to have their opinion heard through social media and as a result people get to hear the extremes. Divisive in relation to race might even be a move forward if, previously, it was a case that the vast majority took the racist view?

You're probably closer to the mark.

It's easier to think you're informed if you spent your entire day staring at your phone, in a way that maybe people didn't pre-internet, so there is a higher level of conviction for the same opinions.

Might be rubbish, but that would be my hunch.

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

Just heard a Professor on the BBC news say we've never lived in more divisive times. Now, I don't dispute there is racism and there is still a long way to go before we are anywhere near equal opportunities but it seems like hyperbole to say we've never lived in more divisive times when 40 or 50 years ago people would openly refuse blacks to access their shops / hotels etc.

I think a theory that the amount of common shared political ground between UK citizens is smaller than it has been for a long time is not an unreasonable theory, wouldn’t you say?

I mean, whenever there is an event that aligns with one side of the culture wars, however reasonable or not, the other side *kicks off*.

The guy presumably doesn’t mean most divisive *ever* since, y’know, there was a civil war and stuff, but you get his point.

I'm not convinced. I think it's just that 'normal people' have more of an opportunity to have their opinion heard through social media and as a result people get to hear the extremes. Divisive in relation to race might even be a move forward if, previously, it was a case that the vast majority took the racist view?

You're probably closer to the mark.

It's easier to think you're informed if you spent your entire day staring at your phone, in a way that maybe people didn't pre-internet, so there is a higher level of conviction for the same opinions.

Might be rubbish, but that would be my hunch.

Probably very true.
The worrying aspect is that a high percentage the informed believe everything they read on the net.
My sister in law got torn apart last week for sharing racist sh!t on FB. She has 2 mixed race daughters!

mrb123

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA&t=817s

Triggernometry interview with Coleman Hughes. A very thoughtful and rational perspective in amongst the madness coming from both sides of this debate.

rick_chasey

mrb123 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA&t=817s

Triggernometry interview with Coleman Hughes. A very thoughtful and rational perspective in amongst the madness coming from both sides of this debate.

Am a bit sceptical of regular quilette contributors being considered fairly balanced in any debate on identity.

rick_chasey

I think this is sensible, from Richard Evans:
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/06/history-wars

His background, for those who don't know, is he led history at cambridge for a while, and became the key expert witness in the Deborah Lipstadt vs irving case, which later got turned into a film.

blazing_saddles

rick_chasey said:

mrb123 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA&t=817s

Triggernometry interview with Coleman Hughes. A very thoughtful and rational perspective in amongst the madness coming from both sides of this debate.

Am a bit sceptical of regular quilette contributors being considered fairly balanced in any debate on identity.

I am a bit sceptical that you listened to that hour long video in less than 7 minutes.

bompington

rick_chasey said:

mrb123 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA&t=817s

Triggernometry interview with Coleman Hughes. A very thoughtful and rational perspective in amongst the madness coming from both sides of this debate.

Am a bit sceptical of regular quilette contributors being considered fairly balanced in any debate on identity.

Am a bit sceptical of anyone being written off without listening to their arguments.


But then, Hughes is the wrong sort of black person, isn't he?

rick_chasey

blazing_saddles said:

rick_chasey said:

mrb123 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA&t=817s

Triggernometry interview with Coleman Hughes. A very thoughtful and rational perspective in amongst the madness coming from both sides of this debate.

Am a bit sceptical of regular quilette contributors being considered fairly balanced in any debate on identity.

I am a bit sceptical that you listened to that hour long video in less than 7 minutes.

Sure, and you'd be right.

Life is too short to read and watch everything, so you have to pick, right?

In this instance, I saw the guy is a regular contributor to quilette who has quite a well defined line on identity which I don't think is either balanced or sensible. That combined with the title, which is a play on 'triggers' (something that only people on the fringes of both sides of the argument bang on about), made me decide not to watch it, which was why I made the comment.

bompington

rick_chasey said:

the guy is a regular contributor to quilette who has quite a well defined line on identity which I don't think is either balanced or sensible.

But it doesn't matter whether it is balanced, sensible or anything: concepts like "balanced" and "sensible" are tools of heteronormative White hegemonistic patriarchy and must bow to the lived experience of Hughes, 'cos he's black.

rick_chasey

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

the guy is a regular contributor to quilette who has quite a well defined line on identity which I don't think is either balanced or sensible.

But it doesn't matter whether it is balanced, sensible or anything: concepts like "balanced" and "sensible" are tools of heteronormative White hegemonistic patriarchy and must bow to the lived experience of Hughes, 'cos he's black.

Oh bomp.

rick_chasey

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

mrb123 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA&t=817s

Triggernometry interview with Coleman Hughes. A very thoughtful and rational perspective in amongst the madness coming from both sides of this debate.

Am a bit sceptical of regular quilette contributors being considered fairly balanced in any debate on identity.

Am a bit sceptical of anyone being written off without listening to their arguments.


But then, Hughes is the wrong sort of black person, isn't he?

As per above, we all have to limit what we can and can't watch/read. Can't read it all.

Might as well be open and honest about what the reasoning is behind that.

durhamwasp

Wonder how many footballers will 'take a knee' at the Qatar football world cup, and how many of these peaceful protestors defacing statues of people from 400yrs ago will head out there to protest against slavery currently going on, and used to build the stadiums?

rick_chasey

durhamwasp said:

Wonder how many footballers will 'take a knee' at the Qatar football world cup, and how many of these peaceful protestors defacing statues of people from 400yrs ago will head out there to protest against slavery currently going on, and used to build the stadiums?

The human rights issues are obviously a huge problem in Qatar, but black lives matter is really about western institutional racism specifically to black people. Hence the name of the movement.

You understand there is a difference, right? And we all struggle to be consistent about everything, but surely an improvement in one area is better than no improvement in any?

I don't think it constructive to only allow people to protest or demonstrate or even talk about injustices who have unblemished, perfect behaviour and background - that means practically that no injustices can ever be discussed.

nickice

durhamwasp said:

Wonder how many footballers will 'take a knee' at the Qatar football world cup, and how many of these peaceful protestors defacing statues of people from 400yrs ago will head out there to protest against slavery currently going on, and used to build the stadiums?

That might cost them money. Saying black lives matter doesn't cost anything because very few people think black lives don't matter.

bompington

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

the guy is a regular contributor to quilette who has quite a well defined line on identity which I don't think is either balanced or sensible.

But it doesn't matter whether it is balanced, sensible or anything: concepts like "balanced" and "sensible" are tools of heteronormative White hegemonistic patriarchy and must bow to the lived experience of Hughes, 'cos he's black.

Oh bomp.

Of course I'm being silly.

But an awful lot of people (although less than you'd think judging by the sheer volume they generate) are using these exact arguments, in these exact words, and in all seriousness.

But you reject Hughes out of hand because he writes in a journal that often has things in it you disagree with.

nickice

rick_chasey said:

mrb123 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtjuf_RxsLA&t=817s

Triggernometry interview with Coleman Hughes. A very thoughtful and rational perspective in amongst the madness coming from both sides of this debate.

Am a bit sceptical of regular quilette contributors being considered fairly balanced in any debate on identity.

Sums you up. You don't want to read/watch anything that challenges your ideas.

rick_chasey

Ah, we all filter what we read. It's not really possible to do it otherwise.

At least I'm open and honest about why.

You could of course explain why in this instance I'm wrong or that my read on Quilette is wrong; that might be more convincing. It might even be the case that I mentioned it specifically so that could be done..!

Instead, I just get heat for being honest about something that we all do.

coopster_the_1st

https://twitter.com/TrumpJew/status/1270573689151594497

Some people will find the honesty from this Family Guy sketch uncomfortable

nickice

rick_chasey said:

Ah, we all filter what we read. It's not really possible to do it otherwise.

At least I'm open and honest about why.

You could of course explain why in this instance I'm wrong or that my read on Quilette is wrong; that might be more convincing. It might even be the case that I mentioned it specifically so that could be done..!

Instead, I just get heat for being honest about something that we all do.

If I have time I'll read/watch it even if it's from a source I usually disagree with. I can see why your opinions are so fixed.

rick_chasey

I don't think quilette argue in good faith. Bluntly.

Quilette specifically has a reputation for publishing people who argue for scientific racism and eugenics, which I firmly believe is are pseudosciences. This reputation is obviously relevant in this context.

It also has a reputation for attempting to make alt-right and other far-right politics appear more legitimate and 'balanced'.

You can look these up fairly easily.

So for all these reasons, I do discount things they publish.

It is not about not reading things you disagree with.

It is about only engaging with things that argue in good faith.

Pross

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

the guy is a regular contributor to quilette who has quite a well defined line on identity which I don't think is either balanced or sensible.

But it doesn't matter whether it is balanced, sensible or anything: concepts like "balanced" and "sensible" are tools of heteronormative White hegemonistic patriarchy and must bow to the lived experience of Hughes, 'cos he's black.

Oh bomp.

Of course I'm being silly.

But an awful lot of people (although less than you'd think judging by the sheer volume they generate) are using these exact arguments, in these exact words, and in all seriousness.

But you reject Hughes out of hand because he writes in a journal that often has things in it you disagree with.

It's standard in these sorts of debates. A group with loud voices will claim to speak for all those who are part of the [insert minority group] as though they will all have the same opinion because they share a skin colour, sexual orientation, religious belief, gender etc. It feels quite ironic in a way. I think that's one of the things that resulted in my friend's comments above, she'd given an opinion that wasn't extreme enough on the subject.

rick_chasey

side show now but if you're interested in the origins of Quilette and where it comes from, have a read of this: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/11/intellectual-dark-web-quillette-claire-lehmann-221917

bompington

rick_chasey said:

I don't think quilette argue in good faith. Bluntly.

Quilette specifically has a reputation for publishing people who argue for scientific racism and eugenics, which I firmly believe is are pseudosciences. This reputation is obviously relevant in this context.

I read Quillette regularly, and I doubt I have missed an article on it for the last few years.
I have never seen an article there arguing for racism of any sort, or eugenics.


Could it be that you are confusing the difference between believing that genes have a significant impact on certain characteristics (and yes,that includes intelligence) and eugenics?

I find that "they're arguing in bad faith" is most often used by people to block out having to deal with what the arguments actually are.

Jeremy.89

I feel like I'm missing out here by never having heard of quilette before.

nickice

bompington said:

rick_chasey said:

I don't think quilette argue in good faith. Bluntly.

Quilette specifically has a reputation for publishing people who argue for scientific racism and eugenics, which I firmly believe is are pseudosciences. This reputation is obviously relevant in this context.

I read Quillette regularly, and I doubt I have missed an article on it for the last few years.
I have never seen an article there arguing for racism of any sort, or eugenics.


Could it be that you are confusing the difference between believing that genes have a significant impact on certain characteristics (and yes,that includes intelligence) and eugenics?

I find that "they're arguing in bad faith" is most often used by people to block out having to deal with what the arguments actually are.

I think it's absolutely this. I don't know if he does it deliberately or if it's a genuine mistake.

nickice

rick_chasey said:

side show now but if you're interested in the origins of Quilette and where it comes from, have a read of this: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/11/11/intellectual-dark-web-quillette-claire-lehmann-221917

Is there something objectionable about Quillette in the this article?

rjsterry

nickice said:

durhamwasp said:

Wonder how many footballers will 'take a knee' at the Qatar football world cup, and how many of these peaceful protestors defacing statues of people from 400yrs ago will head out there to protest against slavery currently going on, and used to build the stadiums?

That might cost them money. Saying black lives matter doesn't cost anything because very few people think black lives don't matter.

The number of people in the UK who admit to holding racist views has been fairly steady for decades at between a quarter and a third. That would suggest that it is more than 'very few'.

nickice

rjsterry said:

nickice said:

durhamwasp said:

Wonder how many footballers will 'take a knee' at the Qatar football world cup, and how many of these peaceful protestors defacing statues of people from 400yrs ago will head out there to protest against slavery currently going on, and used to build the stadiums?

That might cost them money. Saying black lives matter doesn't cost anything because very few people think black lives don't matter.

The number of people in the UK who admit to holding racist views has been fairly steady for decades at between a quarter and a third. That would suggest that it is more than 'very few'.

That's, obviously, not the same thing. Just because people might hold some racist views does not mean they think black lives don't matter.

kingstongraham

Foreign secretary claims that he thinks people taking the knee are doing it because of Game of Thrones.