Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

rick_chasey

blazing_saddles said:

Surely, in order for "global" protests to be coordinated under the BLM banner, they must share objectives?
In which case, defunding the UK police would be recognised as a key component.

Non-sequitur.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

Would anyone be kind enough to give me a summary of what you are all arguing about?

This isn't going to end well.

kingstongraham

Can you sue for libel for posts on here?

DeVlaeminck

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

There's a similar phenomenon with transgender politics - people who dare to suggest that gender is anything to do with biology have been subject to abuse, threats, branded as spreading hate speech and I'm some circumstances put their careers at risk.

My brother is an academic and a campaigner against this stuff. I remember years ago agreeing with him but thinking it was really just academics arguing with other academics. OK a few speakers were being no platformed at universities but that was about the extent of it. How wrong I was.

Sorry who’s getting abuse here?

The eugenicist who lost his job mainly did so because his work was so badly done he got the academic equivalent of being totally rinsed by hundreds of peers. His work was just shoddy, and plainly done to suit a racist agenda.

The woman who got promoted a) will have been promoted long before the announcement and long before BLM and b) has had the context of the statement removed and is a lot more sensible if you actually read it.

Should they have released the promotion statement given the current climate? No.

Is what she said helpful to coming to a positive end to the debate? Also probably no.

Your brother will also no doubt be familiar with the inverse correlation between Cambridge academics’ understanding of their topic and their comprehension of what is going outside the university beyond their topic.

What are you on about? I have no idea what eugenicist you are talking about and my brother graduated from Coventry poly not Cambridge.

I'm making a general point about open discussion and debate being silenced by abuse and the threat of careers being damaged - maybe I've missed some of the thread but unless a Manx radio presenter is also a eugenicist....because that was the example given that prompted my analogy.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

His statement is rather odd though, as there's nothing particularly marxist about wanting to end institutional racism, particularly amongst the police, which is what BLM is fundamentally about. This is what I mean by people deliberately confusing a fringe movement with the wider idea in order to discredit the wider movement.

Nor is wanting to end institutional racism to do with ending a nuclear family?

It makes no sense, but it's revealing of the state of any discussion. One side seems to caricature the other side, and then revel in the indignation when the other side objects to it.

It happens all the time everywhere on all sides.

FWIW my wife got annoyed with me after I was wondering out loud if it was sensible that the welder who was behind the 'white-lives-mater' Burnley flyover lost his job. "You've literally campaigned to help fight institutional racism, endured all that abuse and then a proper racist loses his job and you wonder if it's a bad thing?!?"

I think the internet generally makes people's bizarre opinions easier to share, and it's much easier to pick out someone for their awful views when it's written in black and white, whether on a blog or on twitter.

20 years ago, this charity guy would have said it in the pub to his mates. Maybe someone would have overheard and called him out on it, maybe not, but that's about it.

I don't think cancel culture is helpful, but I'm ambivalent about deplatforming. Sometimes I think it's not a good idea to give legitimacy to extremist views. Other times I think that that can be a slippery slope.

I guess back in the day with much more limited media, the mainstream basically kept the fringes at bay. With the internet, that's much harder to do.

Stevo_666

TheBigBean said:

Would anyone be kind enough to give me a summary of what you are all arguing about?

It started with this from Bally:
"The real concern is that criticising anything connected, no matter how tenuously to BLM, brings howls of protest from the people 'on message' and even if the criticism is justified, it can spell death to your career."

This was strenuously denied so examples were provided to demonstrate the point about career impact. The confusion maybe arises as others have tried to steer the conversation onto other issues.

DeVlaeminck

What we have now are organised pressure groups organising boycotts of social media if they allow "hate speech". So for example we have the guy that wrote Father Ted and The IT Crowd banned from twitter because of his views sticking up for feminist academics who have argued with the trans rights lobby. I could go on and give other examples but they are easy enough to Google.

Stifling of discussion and expressing views that are probably in line with those of the majority of the population is not exactly democratic. Disagree and win the argument don't use threats, abuse and no platforming .

The idea that everyone concerned about this is right wing as Rick would have us believe is nuts.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

The idea that everyone concerned about this is right wing as Rick would have us believe is nuts.

I'm literally saying the opposite but whatever.

This is what I mean by caricaturing.

slowmart

blazing_saddles said:

Surely, in order for "global" protests to be coordinated under the BLM banner, they must share objectives?
In which case, defunding the UK police would be recognised as a key component.

If this isn't the case, it does look as if Stu Peters on Manx radio had a point.

Any adult who abbreviates their name to Stu is classed a first rate cunt and shouldn't be allowed the oxygen of public airways as his source of information is probably facebook.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

rick_chasey said:

DeVlaeminck said:

There's a similar phenomenon with transgender politics - people who dare to suggest that gender is anything to do with biology have been subject to abuse, threats, branded as spreading hate speech and I'm some circumstances put their careers at risk.

My brother is an academic and a campaigner against this stuff. I remember years ago agreeing with him but thinking it was really just academics arguing with other academics. OK a few speakers were being no platformed at universities but that was about the extent of it. How wrong I was.

Sorry who’s getting abuse here?

The eugenicist who lost his job mainly did so because his work was so badly done he got the academic equivalent of being totally rinsed by hundreds of peers. His work was just shoddy, and plainly done to suit a racist agenda.

The woman who got promoted a) will have been promoted long before the announcement and long before BLM and b) has had the context of the statement removed and is a lot more sensible if you actually read it.

Should they have released the promotion statement given the current climate? No.

Is what she said helpful to coming to a positive end to the debate? Also probably no.

Your brother will also no doubt be familiar with the inverse correlation between Cambridge academics’ understanding of their topic and their comprehension of what is going outside the university beyond their topic.

What are you on about? I have no idea what eugenicist you are talking about and my brother graduated from Coventry poly not Cambridge.

I'm making a general point about open discussion and debate being silenced by abuse and the threat of careers being damaged - maybe I've missed some of the thread but unless a Manx radio presenter is also a eugenicist....because that was the example given that prompted my analogy.

My mistake, entirely thought you were on about the Cambridge professor who got tinned and the other one who got promoted.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

That is exactly the point that is being made. There was no valid reason for the removal of either person from their jobs based on what they said/wrote.

It wasn't originally your point, granted. RJS was adamant that this sort of thing didn't happen and his silence when shown the specifics of these examples speaks volumes.

Also it is relevant to the points made about repression of free speech, mob justice and certain groups being seemingly being beyond criticism.

Stevo_666

slowmart said:

blazing_saddles said:

Surely, in order for "global" protests to be coordinated under the BLM banner, they must share objectives?
In which case, defunding the UK police would be recognised as a key component.

If this isn't the case, it does look as if Stu Peters on Manx radio had a point.

Any adult who abbreviates their name to Stu is classed a first rate censored and shouldn't be allowed the oxygen of public airways as his source of information is probably facebook.

You may get a few likes from BLM members with tolerant and non-judgmental posts like that.

blazing_saddles

slowmart said:

blazing_saddles said:

Surely, in order for "global" protests to be coordinated under the BLM banner, they must share objectives?
In which case, defunding the UK police would be recognised as a key component.

If this isn't the case, it does look as if Stu Peters on Manx radio had a point.

Any adult who abbreviates their name to Stu is classed a first rate censored and shouldn't be allowed the oxygen of public airways as his source of information is probably facebook.

A better effort than Rick's response but again no attempt at an answer.
It does seem as if one of the stated goals of their "manifesto" is to “defund the police”, here in the UK.

https://talkradio.co.uk/news/black-lives-matter-activist-sets-out-manifesto-tackle-racism-20061233431

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

That is exactly the point that is being made. There was no valid reason for the removal of either person from their jobs based on what they said/wrote.

It wasn't originally your point, granted. RJS was adamant that this sort of thing didn't happen and his silence when shown the specifics of these examples speaks volumes.

Also it is relevant to the points made about repression of free speech, mob justice and certain groups being seemingly being beyond criticism.

This happens in different ways all over the place, on both sides.

What do you think people complaining about pervasive structural racism are going on about?

To use the original topic as an example: it would have been very easy to do what was originally planned with the statue, which was stick a nice big plaque on the statue explaining how and why it was put up when it was, and what Mr Colston actually did, and leave it up everyone else, right?

That would have been a nice, sensible, centrist thing to do. But there were some plain fringe people in the sphere of influence, in this case, town hall, who obstinately blocked any attempt at doing anything sensible.

Then, when the BLM protests happened, in their temporary sphere of influence, some angry protesters took the other extreme measure which was to pull the whole thing down.

What you then got were various sides pointing fingers at each other, either for demonstrating the problems of institutional racism (why else would they be so opposed to the plaque?) or for mob justice and cancel culture (why do they want to destroy and/or remove everything they don't agree with?)

I feel here, you're focusing on one bit (the cancel culture, political correctness gone mad etc) without recognising where the other sides?

pangolin

Ello ello. Sorry, seems I missed a bit of a fuss! Haven't posted since the forum went down for a week.

Clearly (well I would hope it's clear) I thought that UKBLM and BLM were part of the same group. As did Coop and many others. My mistake.

No need for slander Coopster.

darkhairedlord

pangolin said:

Ello ello. Sorry, seems I missed a bit of a fuss! Haven't posted since the forum went down for a week.

Clearly (well I would hope it's clear) I thought that UKBLM and BLM were part of the same group. As did Coop and many others. My mistake.

No need for slander Coopster.

A bit extreme that he would call you an anti-semite on a public forum.

ballysmate

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

That is exactly the point that is being made. There was no valid reason for the removal of either person from their jobs based on what they said/wrote.

It wasn't originally your point, granted. RJS was adamant that this sort of thing didn't happen and his silence when shown the specifics of these examples speaks volumes.

Also it is relevant to the points made about repression of free speech, mob justice and certain groups being seemingly being beyond criticism.

Perhaps RJS has had the sack for not being sufficiently pro BLM and is job hunting?

I see Matt Le Tissier has had talks with Sky re no longer wanting to wear the BLM badge that all pundits have been wearing now that he is aware of their political aims.
Turns out they are not obligatory, but the fact that he felt the need to discuss not wearing one, suggests that he thought they were.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

That is exactly the point that is being made. There was no valid reason for the removal of either person from their jobs based on what they said/wrote.

It wasn't originally your point, granted. RJS was adamant that this sort of thing didn't happen and his silence when shown the specifics of these examples speaks volumes.

Also it is relevant to the points made about repression of free speech, mob justice and certain groups being seemingly being beyond criticism.

Perhaps RJS has had the sack for not being sufficiently pro BLM and is job hunting?

I see Matt Le Tissier has had talks with Sky re no longer wanting to wear the BLM badge that all pundits have been wearing now that he is aware of their political aims.
Turns out they are not obligatory, but the fact that he felt the need to discuss not wearing one, suggests that he thought they were.

This sounds remarkably similar to the poppy debate.

Again though, is this not people getting the wrong end of the stick?

BLM is about ending institutional racism, especially in the police.

A more legit question would be what are the specific objectives, but to object to ending institutional racism seems very odd.

rick_chasey

There is also a lot of this:


Manufactured threats and outrages to satisfy the caricature.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

That is exactly the point that is being made. There was no valid reason for the removal of either person from their jobs based on what they said/wrote.

It wasn't originally your point, granted. RJS was adamant that this sort of thing didn't happen and his silence when shown the specifics of these examples speaks volumes.

Also it is relevant to the points made about repression of free speech, mob justice and certain groups being seemingly being beyond criticism.

Perhaps RJS has had the sack for not being sufficiently pro BLM and is job hunting?

I see Matt Le Tissier has had talks with Sky re no longer wanting to wear the BLM badge that all pundits have been wearing now that he is aware of their political aims.
Turns out they are not obligatory, but the fact that he felt the need to discuss not wearing one, suggests that he thought they were.

This sounds remarkably similar to the poppy debate.

Again though, is this not people getting the wrong end of the stick?

BLM is about ending institutional racism, especially in the police.

A more legit question would be what are the specific objectives, but to object to ending institutional racism seems very odd.

It is remarkably like the poppy debate, where people on TV feel they must be seen to wear one for the sake of their careers. They feel failure to comply will hurt their careers.

I don't think for one minute Le Tiss objects to ending racism.
He appears to object to supporting an organisation whose specific objectives have become clear to him.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

That is exactly the point that is being made. There was no valid reason for the removal of either person from their jobs based on what they said/wrote.

It wasn't originally your point, granted. RJS was adamant that this sort of thing didn't happen and his silence when shown the specifics of these examples speaks volumes.

Also it is relevant to the points made about repression of free speech, mob justice and certain groups being seemingly being beyond criticism.

Perhaps RJS has had the sack for not being sufficiently pro BLM and is job hunting?

I see Matt Le Tissier has had talks with Sky re no longer wanting to wear the BLM badge that all pundits have been wearing now that he is aware of their political aims.
Turns out they are not obligatory, but the fact that he felt the need to discuss not wearing one, suggests that he thought they were.

This sounds remarkably similar to the poppy debate.

Again though, is this not people getting the wrong end of the stick?

BLM is about ending institutional racism, especially in the police.

A more legit question would be what are the specific objectives, but to object to ending institutional racism seems very odd.

It is remarkably like the poppy debate, where people on TV feel they must be seen to wear one for the sake of their careers. They feel failure to comply will hurt their careers.

I don't think for one minute Le Tiss objects to ending racism.
He appears to object to supporting an organisation whose specific objectives have become clear to him.

Yes but I thought you agreed that BLM isn't an organisation, it's a movement, and a fringe of nutters have hijacked the movement to set up their own organisation, which, by all accounts, has nothing to do with what the movement is obviously about.

ballysmate

So he objects to wearing a badge that the wearing of which has become synonymous with support for a bunch of nutters.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

So he objects to wearing a badge that the wearing of which has become synonymous with support for a bunch of nutters.

Only to people who seem to have had scepticism about it from the start.

I don't know anyone in the real world who thinks BLM is about anything other than racial injustice.

ballysmate

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

So he objects to wearing a badge that the wearing of which has become synonymous with support for a bunch of nutters.

Only to people who seem to have had scepticism about it from the start.

I don't know anyone in the real world who thinks BLM is about anything other than racial injustice.

You seem to be saying Le Tiss was always a sceptic? Curious how you know that.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

So he objects to wearing a badge that the wearing of which has become synonymous with support for a bunch of nutters.

Only to people who seem to have had scepticism about it from the start.

I don't know anyone in the real world who thinks BLM is about anything other than racial injustice.

You seem to be saying Le Tiss was always a sceptic? Curious how you know that.

No that's not what I'm saying. Either you're in this to have a discussion or you're in this to trip people up.

Which is it?

rjsterry

ballysmate said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

And here is what Nick Buckley wrote:
https://tfa.net/nick_buckley_must_be_reinstated_as_ceo_of_mancunian_way

Same again RJS, do tell us what his crime is.

I'm a bit confused, why are we now quoting from libertarian pressure groups?

There's a lot of "people are being silent on this" - it's quite simple, I don't know anything about it.

I'm quoting what Buckley wrote which lead to his removal (which just happens to be on the website in that link).

Same point to you as to RJS - have a read and tell us what he said wrong that would justify his removal. Its less than 600 words.

Look. I don't know what the reason was for this guy being removed.

I don't think it necessarily solves anything.

That is exactly the point that is being made. There was no valid reason for the removal of either person from their jobs based on what they said/wrote.

It wasn't originally your point, granted. RJS was adamant that this sort of thing didn't happen and his silence when shown the specifics of these examples speaks volumes.

Also it is relevant to the points made about repression of free speech, mob justice and certain groups being seemingly being beyond criticism.

Perhaps RJS has had the sack for not being sufficiently pro BLM and is job hunting?

I see Matt Le Tissier has had talks with Sky re no longer wanting to wear the BLM badge that all pundits have been wearing now that he is aware of their political aims.
Turns out they are not obligatory, but the fact that he felt the need to discuss not wearing one, suggests that he thought they were.

No, just on site this morning and off to site again in a minute so I'll have to get back to you later. Just to respond to the main point, you started off by suggesting any criticism of the BLM movement was likely to be career ending. Clearly that's not true as criticism of the specific BLMUK organisation has been all over the media in the last few days. That's a bit different from the idiot with the White Lives Matter plane. Fwiw, sacking him doesn't seem terribly constructive, but his employer may have had other reasons to get shot of him. Also a bit of a stretch to describe that as criticism. Anyway back to work...

surrey_commuter

pangolin said:

Ello ello. Sorry, seems I missed a bit of a fuss! Haven't posted since the forum went down for a week.

Clearly (well I would hope it's clear) I thought that UKBLM and BLM were part of the same group. As did Coop and many others. My mistake.

No need for slander Coopster.

the written word counts as libel which theory means a better payout but as only 12 people come to this forum you may want to keep costs down. Plus you have to consider whether the defendant will have enough assets to meet your claim.

shortfall

surrey_commuter said:

pangolin said:

Ello ello. Sorry, seems I missed a bit of a fuss! Haven't posted since the forum went down for a week.

Clearly (well I would hope it's clear) I thought that UKBLM and BLM were part of the same group. As did Coop and many others. My mistake.

No need for slander Coopster.

the written word counts as libel which theory means a better payout but as only 12 people come to this forum you may want to keep costs down. Plus you have to consider whether the defendant will have enough assets to meet your claim.

That and the fact that as he's anonymous his reputation can't have been harmed.

kingstongraham

shortfall said:

surrey_commuter said:

pangolin said:

Ello ello. Sorry, seems I missed a bit of a fuss! Haven't posted since the forum went down for a week.

Clearly (well I would hope it's clear) I thought that UKBLM and BLM were part of the same group. As did Coop and many others. My mistake.

No need for slander Coopster.

the written word counts as libel which theory means a better payout but as only 12 people come to this forum you may want to keep costs down. Plus you have to consider whether the defendant will have enough assets to meet your claim.

That and the fact that as he's anonymous his reputation can't have been harmed.

And whether being insulted by coopster actually counts.