[Formula 1 2020 Season]

Finally. I feel like I’ve been waiting for that forever. Almost teary eyed at the F1 music intro. 

 

 

[Your 2020 Gaming Diary]

3 hours ago, will' said:

Such a good experience, I wasn't a huge fan of 4 and don't think I ever completed it, but this one I felt like it was my expected progress from GTA3 and it's sister titles. Such a rich world with so much to see and do, I could enjoy just being in the world for hours at a time.

Interestingly, I could never really get into 5. GTA4 is one of my favourite games of all time. I loved the gritty and realistic direction they went in for that one and thought the world they built felt more alive than anything I'd every experienced before it. The hazy and grey art style really captures New York well. It still looks amazing today. I've given 5 a go a few times but I just feel it's lacking what made 4 so special. 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

6 hours ago, will' said:

This part I completely agree with. I’d say I’m a little more critical of the UK than you are but we’re so much better than many. Living in Singapore has been eye opening on what things can be like when you don’t have these protections.

I've had friends arrested for stuff they've posted on social media and had friends planted with drugs when they attended unsanctioned political gatherings or unofficial pride parades. When you have to stop and think before you post something on social media, the game is already over. When you walk around with cash in your pocket in case you get stopped by the police and might need to bribe your way out of a situation, something is very, very wrong. The UK is far from perfect, but the authoritarian nature of these movements is extremely worrying and everyone needs to take a step back and think about where they want to be in five or ten years time. We already see this sort of behaviour in the online space, particularly on social media, it's creeping into the mainstream and it will be too late before many people realise what's happening. 

[30 Day Video Game Challenge Thing.]

Technically not an opening, so I apologise.

After what had already been an incredible opening section of a game, this took it one step further.

Spoiler

 

 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

On 01/07/2020 at 5:38 AM, will' said:

 

@Nicktendo - I don’t think you should drop out of this discussion. It’s really quite valuable to discuss all of this among people with differing view points. Is there any particular issue you have with intersectionality?

The two main problems I see with Postmodernism, and intersectionality as an off-shoot.

1) It never aims to solve any problems, but endlessly find more and more.
2) It is replacing religion in the West. That's why you see people "taking a knee" to show their 'purity' and commitment to the cause. That's why you see people getting cancelled for the most minor of transgressions, even if they happened 5, 10, 20 years ago. There is no redemption unless they completely cave to the mob and atone for their sins. That's why people are labelled "alt-right" - as they don't subscribe to the religion, they must be silenced so that the masses of sensible people don't tune in to their message.
 

Anyone in a debate that focuses on illegitimacy of someone to speak based on their skin, race, gender or sexuality is not arguing from a place of intellectual honesty, but because they want power over that person to shape the narrative. And of course, that makes them racist, sexist or whatever -ist by default, there's no other way to put it. They will never acknowledge that and instead will tell you to "check your privilege" and other various word-soup nonsense that is designed to distract from a proper argument or debate and highlight how "bad" the other person is.

Postmodernists never build, only destroy. It is a waste of time to engage with such people because you will never be afforded the position of having a potentially legitimate argument. Your solutions will never be considered and you will instead be attacked as being some kind of -ist if you come from a position of accepted modernist truth. That is why the phrase post-truth has some resonance in modern society. To them, it simply doesn't matter.

I want everyone to be free to make up their own minds. The facts and the truth are out there, you just have to do the work yourself. Some people prefer to ignore it because it's not convenient and they're happy to just go by ignoring the noise, but censorship is coming if these groups get any more power. 

I'll add to my input by playing the postmodernist game - "my truth" 
I became a hardcore Marxist in University, you can go over my post history on this site if you have any doubts. I bought into it all, social justice, postmodernism, the lot. I wanted to make the world a better place for everyone. I didn't understand why there was so much injustice in the world, particularly the West. I hated my own country and hated capitalism. So much so, that I took myself to Russia and learnt Russian to an almost-native level so I could read everything in the original language and try to understand how socialism failed and how it could work in practice. When I eventually came back after the Brexit vote, I immediately joined Labour and Momentum and started getting involved, 100% behind Corbyn, I never thought someone like him would be the head of a major party in my lifetime. The people in Momentum were some of the most vile and dangerous people I've ever come across, oh and antisemites. Real hardcore antisemites. They have no interest in making anything better for anyone except themselves. They want power and are happy to use every single minority to get it. 

All you have to do is look at ResetEra to see where this is going. The postmodernists took positions of power at NeoGAF during the last US election, tried to frame the owner for a sexual digression and when they couldn't fully take over GAF, they broke off and started Era. In the space of 2 years, they had banned 20% of the entire userbase. Over 10,000 people. This sounds like ridiculous fan fiction, but it's playing out right in front of our eyes, these people want power at the expense of anyone that gets in their way. Democracy, liberty and freedom of speech will all be sacrificed in the name of "social justice". Go read any thread on ResetEra and you'll see the open, blatant and disgusting vitriol directed at anyone who identifies as white, straight, or as a "gamer". Call them out or disagree and you're wiped off the face of the Earth. Well, Era, not Earth. But still, some people have even been targeted in their jobs for stuff they've said on Era (that's why they make you sign up with a work e-mail address ). 

I 100% support equal rights and equality of opportunity for all regardless of race, gender and sexuality. I am 100% in favour of having a rational debate and trying to find real solutions to make Britain a better place for all. I am 100% against Black Lives Matter. 

So again, thanks to the people who engaged honestly. Everyone else, feel free to ignore me, but let me give you a warning: living in a country that doesn't have freedom of speech, democracy and liberty, really makes you appreciate it a whole lot more. 

 

[E̶3̶ ̶2̶0̶2̶0̶]

Thanks, @londragon, got it. 

[N-E Café Podcast]

4 minutes ago, Jonnas said:

...I see the Fighter's pass is considerably more expensive in the UK. It's 45€ for both fighters passes here, and I think even cheaper in the US. It's also 4,99€ per character, not 5,30 quid (which is a price I literally just found after googling). Yeah, I understand the point better.

Wait, I'm getting confused with all these currencies. I just checked and It's £4.49 per character in the U.K. and £22.49 for the pass, my bad. So £45 for both packs. It's not a massive difference, but still feels like a lot. I've got the first one and love three of the five characters, will probably get the second at reveal 3 / 4. Min Min is a great start. Give me Hollow Knight and it's an instabuy 

[30 Day Video Game Challenge Thing.]

3 hours ago, BowserBasher said:

BBC micro

90s School kids, can I get a hell yeah?! 

It's our planet, it's our place, we must save the human race, eaaaaaarth warp, we must save the woooorld! 

Definitely remember playing Earth Warp on the BBC Mirco in Mrs. Hill's class (year 4) at Woodthorpe Primary School. Ollie the Alien, what a guy.

+ 10 internet points for remembering "Through the Dragon's eye". Also had a BBC Micro game as far as I remember...

 

[30 Day Video Game Challenge Thing.]

2 hours ago, Julius said:

I have a bunch of memories tied to that thing: being petrified by the first fifteen minutes of Dino Crisis over and over again

Hahah, yes! I was probably a lot older than you (maybe 11 or 12) but I still remember absolutely shitting myself playing this game. It was the first "horror" game I ever played. What a game. Still love it more than the PS1 Resi games to this day. 

2 hours ago, Julius said:

But I think the absolute earliest, at a guess, would have to be Tomb Raider III. 

I have absolutely no idea how far I got into that game. I remember sliding down slopes, jumping (and often failing) to avoid spikes, I remember a quad bike, and I have a clear memory of a swimming pool too. There's no way I finished that game. 

What I imagine is actually my earliest memory of playing it is actually pretty vivid: I must have been only 3 or 4 at the time, it's a Sunday evening, and I'm roaming around Croft Manor when my dad comes home from shopping with a multipack of McCoy's - I remember that because it was the first time I tried Thai Sweet Chilli, and I felt like I had been conned out of a decent packed of crisps, because I wasn't a fan 

Again, older than you, which is why me and my friend tried the "Naked Lara Croft" cheat. Absolutely not worth it.

 

[N-E Café Podcast]

20 hours ago, Jonnas said:

• While your thoughts on DLC aren't much different from mine, I should say I strongly disagree about Smash Bros. DLC. While MK tracks can be played once per session, fighting game characters are likely to be played several times, possibly being one of the few characters you ever use. In that sense, one good character brings a lot more value than one good racing track, and I think simply looking at total character number is erroneous. Furthermore, each character also brings an extra stage, extra music, and extra spirit battles, all while being priced the same as other DLC of the genre: by all means, among modern fighting games, Smash provides some of the best value per buck when it comes to DLC characters.
  • Regarding Mii costumes, there's no completionist incentive there, as there's no activity to collect these in Ultimate. They're really just individual cosmetics (and imo, regardless of price, a decent way to feature characters/franchises that otherwise had no chance to appear). That said, Sans and Cuphead brought an additional song each with them, and weren't priced any higher. Just saying, that part wasn't taken into account  

That's fair enough regarding Smash characters and value. I know a lot of work goes into them, and Greg did bring up the task of balancing everything, to be fair. Can't be a simple process! Smash Bros. is insane value getting 70+ characters at the base price, but then again, I guess most of them have been largely balanced in previous games. This is already a 20+ year old series after all. I appreciate the fact they throw in a stage and remixed music with every one, but still 5 or 6 pounds still feels like a lot. The pass is better value, of course. But getting the 2 passes is 50 quid. You're talking the price of a full game there for 10 characters! Maybe good in comparison with other fighters like MK or SFV, but still a lot of money to drop.

I've got Sans and Cuphead, so I guess it's true that the completionist incentive doesn't really apply here. People will drop a small amount of money on the things they specifically want. These are two of my favourite characters of the past 5 years, so it makes sense that I bought in. I still think the price is a little steep, but the music definitely sweetens the deal. The rest of the costumes don't really interest me (bar fallout guy), but I do think it would be wise for Nintendo to offer a bundle of all of them for a massively reduced price. I'd pay a fiver, for example, to get them all. 

20 hours ago, Jonnas said:

• To clarify, the Three Houses DLC isn't an entirely new storyline or path. Rather, it's a side story that can be played on any path, and brings four new, fully voiced and realized characters into the cast, while fleshing out the world some more (the DLC does introduce a new House to the lore, which I suppose is where the confusion comes from). It also brings 4 unique (very much needed) classes/jobs into the game, which add significant depth to the game, so it's still quite a substantial addition. The DLC has been generally well received among the FE community, at any rate.
• Finally, if I'm allowed to go on a tangent, Intelligent Systems really likes to reinvent itself with each entry in a franchise, whether that franchise is Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, or Paper Mario. While they do have DLC plans for their games, I don't think they've ever extended them beyond whatever initial plan they had. Despite Awakening's success, they preferred to work on Fates instead of showering that game with more DLC. And though Fates was horrendous with how monetized it was, IS still decided that, before moving to the Switch, they wanted to try something new with Shadows of Valentia (a smaller project to pass the time, they called it) instead of coming up with more Fates DLC.

I'm not massively familiar with the FE3H DLC (still haven't picked it up), I guess I was too presumptive in the podcast, but I know it was fairly substantial and added a lot to the story. So like Xenoblade 2, it seems like it might be worth it even if the price is quite high. With regards to the 3DS games, I'd argue that development costs are substantially lower in that case, so making a sequel requires less of an investment. With the 3D graphics and assets etc. that can't be such an easy task. I know the bulk of the work is done building the engine and stuff, but FE in 3D is a perfect example of a game I'd take one iteration per gen + substantial DLC if I'd enjoyed the full base game. For me, I wouldn't particularly want to play through two games of the genre in one gen. 

20 hours ago, Jonnas said:

My point is that, ultimately, it might not be that rewarding to support the same game for so many years. Not only can it be tiring for the developers themselves, but surely, a shining new game is more marketable than "more DLC for that one game from 5 years ago". Just saying, maybe something like Super Mario Odyssey 2 really is a better option for everybody involved than a lot of DLC for Mario Odyssey 1. Sure, the model might work for staples like Mario Kart or Smash Brothers, but for games that are primarily single-player, I think sequels are still the way to go.

I agree with this on the whole. I said it in the podcast myself that I'd want a sequel to BOTW and Mario Odyssey. I think you're right about single player games (despite my earlier point about FE) that single player games are often better with a sequel. For me, bookending the gen is the best way to do this. Mario and Zelda at the start to attract the early adopters and the full sequels at the end of the gen to show "how far" they've come in terms of understanding the tech. Though this, I would argue, means it's less likely we'd start the next gen with these games. At the same time, I still believe though that one Splatoon, one Mario Kart, Animal Crossing and one Smash Bros. per gen is more than enough. I'd buy in to paid DLC and substantial support for any of these. As for more "obscure" single player games like Xenoblade and Fire Emblem, I'm also happy with one iteration per gen. + substantial DLC with minor improvements should I want to jump back in a year or two later. 

[30 Day Video Game Challenge Thing.]

Earliest gaming memory

Standing in the corner of the living room by the table lamp because my dad refused to switch on "the big light"

20 minutes an evening was all I was allowed. 1990. Some great memories of this and Tetris. 

I may have played a NES and SMB3 at my next door neighbour's house before this, but honestly it's all a haze these days. The GB was the first one I owned by proxy (Dad got one for boat trips across the bay in Hong Kong when he was working there). Don't think he realised his mistake when he introduced me to it once he came home. He still regrets picking one up to this day, I'm sure. 

[N-E Café Podcast]

@Jonnas I'll respond to the rest of this later, but for now...

9 hours ago, Jonnas said:

Huniepop

[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]

2 hours ago, drahkon said:

How's the dedicated single player part of the game?

I've played the multiplayer quite a bit at a friend's place and it's obviously great, but given that I currently only use my Switch as a single-player machine I'd love to know whether it's worth the price.

I got 30 hours out of the World of Light mode by the time I finished it but that was stretched out over months because it’s not so much fun to just do battle after battle. Each character has a solo classic mode run which takes about 10-15 mins to do, so there’s plenty of meat to that if you want to improve scores or Chase a 9.9. The single player stuff doesn’t seem as engaging as it was in Melee and Brawl or quite as deep, but over time and with decent breaks is fun to accomplish. 

The online is better than ever though In terms of stability, and with regular events, tournaments and timed spirits there’s plenty to do in that regard. I’d say it’s worth it. I’ve got 150 hours out of it since launch and never played locally with anyone. Most time invested in a Smash game since Melee, which I did play locally. 
 

[N-E Café Podcast]

2 hours ago, Jonnas said:

I'm around the 47 minute mark. Interesting podcast so far (definitely have a few things to say about the Pachinko business later today)

As of right now, I definitely recognize the transition tunes:

  And the game is... (Reveal hidden contents)

Civilization VI

This is an OST I'm really fond of, so I recognized that Bronze Age America the Great immediately. Also, good choice on using the Russian Medieval theme, it's literally the Tetris theme after all  

 

Spoiler

Damn! I was hoping the Russian theme would throw people off and make them think Tetris 

Although Kalinka has been featured in Tetris, it is actually Korobeiniki which was used in the Game Boy version and went on to become the Tetris "theme". They sound pretty similar though. Check out the originals on YT, they're both amazing. When I lived in Russia, I lived on a street named after the composer of the Korobeiniki poem, Nikolai Nekrasov. Cool factoid about how my love of Russia and Vidya collided in an unexpected way. 

 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

11 minutes ago, Ashley said:

intersectional issues

I'm going to take my leave at this point. Thank you to everyone for allowing me to freely express my views. Thank you for disagreeing and sharing your concerns. 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

1 minute ago, Sheikah said:

This is not about guessing when it'll happen again, it is fundamentally understanding the process and cost involved in becoming president and how black people are at a disadvantage in this regard.

White people are at an advantage across the vast majority of discernible metrics when compared to many minorities, and particularly compared to black people.

As I said, black people are more likely to be born into deprived areas, and more likely to be born into poverty. Your point that white working class kids perform badly doesn't take into account that a higher proportion of black people are born into poverty than white people.

Some stats on the proportions of those who live in low income households (from Poverty.co.uk):

• 20% for White people.
• 30% for Indians and Black Caribbeans.
• 50% for Black Africans.
• 60% for Pakistanis.
• 70% for Bangladeshis

Your focus on top earners makes no sense to me; we should be looking at the bottom earners because those are the ones who truly suffer.

And yet these titles favour white people, and lead to higher enrichment of white people and white representation in the House of Lords. With this example in hand I am not sure how you can continue to believe there is no institutional racism in the UK? There is no more clear an example than this.

From my own perspective, if I was in this position where a person of colour told me that they were shocked at my comments about racism (something which I do not experience myself in this country), I'd absolutely be reflecting on what I said.

The US president will almost always be the one who spends the most money. There are plenty of rich black people, like Obama, who could run if they so choose. Skin colour has nothing to do with it in this regard as it means no poor people will every become President, regardless of skin colour. It is possible to escape poverty for anyone. I don't really get the point you're trying to make here. Black people are proportionately at a disadvantage, of course, but that can be changed in the current system with the right attitude. Obama himself is proof of that, along with every other black presidential candidate who has stood in the past few decades. Obama had good ideas and offered an immense amount of hope and promise. I thought he was the best candidate the US had had in my lifetime, by an absolute country mile. The fact we are where we are after his 8 year presidency is nothing short of a catastrophe. Nothing was done after Ferguson and it was actually Trump who achieved the lowest black unemployment in the history of the US, three years into his presidency. The change he promised to deliver didn't come. I accept there are many reasons for this where the blame cannot be laid with him personally, including the House of Representatives and the Senate, however, it seems to me that the situation actually got worse for black people from the start to the end of his presidency. 

I've offered what I consider implementable solutions about how to fix poverty and how it would, undoubtedly, affect all members of society, especially those at the bottom and minorities. What do you suggest we do? I've conceded that poverty that is historically linked to racism. I also concede that hereditary titles are historically connected to racism. Of course that is unfortunate, but in 2020, it is my belief that they affect everyone equally, regardless of skin colour, and I've explained my reasons why and provided examples of minorities with titles. British people of all races can improve their situation, I'm yet to see how this is not the case. Is the country perfect? Far from it, but I believe we have made incredible progress since WW2 and that we are, for the most part, a society that sees past skin colour. Of course there are idiots, there are in every country, but that doesn't change the fact that in Britain, in contrast to 95% of the world, a minority would not be denied something a white person would at an institutional level. We can do more, of course, which is why I provided solutions to the problems I see. 

A person's colour makes no difference to me. I prefer to engage with people based on their idea and arguments, not their skin colour. I don't want to come across as rude or abrasive, so I apologise if it seems that way, but I am tired of arguments being built on what I consider to be emotions and lies. I'm tired of people clinging to a cause to show they're an ally when in reality they don't give a fuck and just don't want to be called out. I don't want to see the country I was born in destroyed and transformed beyond recognition into a socialist hell-hole where free speech is curbed and everyone ends up becoming a victim. That quote I pulled earlier was from the official UK BLM. "Destory capitalism" - and do what exactly? What should be built instead? I don't see solutions, I only see catchphrases and radical and outdated Marxist ideas that wouldn't look out of place in Venezuela (abolish history, tear down statues) or Russia circa 1918 (rioting and attacking police). I want life to be good for everyone, I want people to be empowered and make their lives better, not to be told they are victims and be given things based on characteristics they can't change. We've all seen how this has played out in the past, many times over, and going down the road many seem to want to go down, I believe, is a massive mistake and will only make things worse. I guess time will tell, but unfortunately, I'm not remaining hopeful. 

 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

47 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

@Nicktendo none of your responses are actually disproving my points. For instance:

This does not mean that black people have the same chance of becoming president. In fact becoming president requires a lot of money and backing which again puts black people at a disadvantage.

You keep saying this one very specific, cherry-picked statistic but this in no way disproves any points about white people having a societal head start over black people. Black people are likely to earn less and be born in more deprived areas than white people.

And yet you say there is no institutional racism in this country? There are literally titles that can be bestowed upon white people in this country, and eventually their children, that let's be honest, black people will never manage to obtain.

If it's still changing then how can you say there is no longer any institutional racism? Either we have changed and institutional racism is gone for good, or we are still changing.

This response I feel absolutely did not address the point I was making.

House of Lords contains hereditary peers which will pass on their position to their white children. The minorities that have been appointed (in addition to other white people, who also get appointed) are separate to this.

So what am I saying? That there is a predisposition towards having white peers in the House of Lords. That, in a nutshell, is a solid example of institutional racism right there.

Having an emotional reaction to an argument doesn't make it true, but it might help invoke some self reflection.

Obama. How do you know it couldn't happen again? Kamala Harris was an embarrassingly poor candidate, Cory Booker wasn't much better. Poor ideas and nothing of substance to offer. Obama, after beating the MUCH better funded Hillary Clinton, promised change and failed spectacularly. Ben Carson is one of the greatest thinkers of our age, I would love to see him get the Republican nomination in 2024. I've also been following John James for a while after seeing an interview with him. I'd like him to make a run. He has some great ideas. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio came very close in 2016 and are extremely popular among many white Republicans. Not black, granted, but not white.

Our friend Joe Biden recently said "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.". All black people should think the same then? Vote for the nice, old white man who'll look after you (despite doing nothing as VP or having spent 50 years in politics). Abhorrent racism and indicative of how Democrats thinks of black people. They only see skin colour, not individuals. 

Cherry-picked or not, white people are not at an advantage. Why are you focusing only on black people? Cherry-picking. White working class kids are consistently the lowest performing group, often below black kids in certain areas of social mobility, poverty, drugs and crime. Societal head start? Poverty and culture. 

I see a lot of black Sirs in the UK, a title. A lot of black people with OBEs and MBEs. This absolute lad:
 

If you're referring to Royal titles - then the entire white population of Manchester aged 5-18 has less chance of ever achieving this than the children of Megan and Harry. Institutional racism? You need to be clearer. What "titles" are you referring to? 

I'm in favour of abolishing hereditary titles and positions in the House of Lords, regardless or race or skin colour. They are unfair to ALL of society, not just black people. 

Why do I need to self-reflect in response to emotion? Give me something tangible and I'll self-reflect. 

 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

33 minutes ago, Rummy said:

dropping in super quick as this has popped back up on youtube - documentary by daryl davis a legendary blues musician who befriended and managed to obtain the robes of a number of Klansmen, very interesting guy;

 

 

I saw this guy on JRE about a year ago and the interview was amazing. Incredible human being. 

Edit: it was only four months ago 

 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

2 hours ago, Sheikah said:

One single black person has gone on to be president but it doesn't mean black people have the same chance to become president. There are so many factors that will prevent many black people from ever even becoming a candidate. Also you are separating race from class when they are fact intertwined. If you are born into a black family you are less likely to even be middle class, and the way it's set up it's almost impossible for black people to be "upper" class aristocracy in this country. You say this country is not institutionally racist when it certainly is. Hereditary peers in the House of Lords for instance, are mostly white and pass on their positions to white children.

Have to agree with you here, I was extremely shocked too to see anyone believing that. Mark my words there will be another scandal before long showing just how "dead" institutional racism really is.

There have been numerous Black, Asian and Hispanic candidates for the presidency from both the republicans and the democrats. 

Race and class are often intertwined, but not always. British Indians are the highest earners on average in the U.K.  

It’s almost impossible for anyone to be upper class aristocracy. The fact it is historically based means it is no surprise that the tide against racism having begun to turn against racism in the 60s, there is almost no minority aristocracy. But almost no doesn’t mean none, like other areas of the U.K., this is changing.

The House of Lords is mostly white, but not completely. 6.1% of it made up of minority members  

Having an emotional reaction to an argument does not mean it is not true. I don’t care if you’re extremely shocked. I am yet to see a clearly defined example of institutional racism in the U.K. Predicting “another scandal” is not an example. It is another emotional response. Provide me an example instead of emotions and we can discuss it like adults. Simply implying I’m wrong isn’t good enough. In a topic this important, some actual evidence would be good. 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

So in response mainly to @will' from my post earlier, I've come up with seven practical steps that I feel would improve day-to-day race relations issues of racism in the U.K. Some of them don't even touch on specifically on race, but in my view would improve things as a by-product. They may not be perfect, but I feel they are reasonable and achievable. I'm open to criticism, but I am 100% certain that any of these steps would be better for everyone than "defund the police" or "destory capitalism". 

 

1)      End diversity quotas.

Although I’m sure these were much more prevalent under Labour and that they’re mostly gone now, I personally don’t believe they help at all, mainly for the reasons Animal expressed. People should be selected entirely based on their skills. I would even go as far as removing ethnicity from any kind of form as this is an instant way for people to be categorised. A tick in a box does nothing for anyone. We are all British. Citizen / non-citizen would be a much better way of “categorising” people.

2)      Re-introduce grammar schools. Expand school choice.

Grammar schools were a fantastic tool for social mobility and it’s a damn shame they’ve basically disappeared from the U.K. I’d reintroduce them, specifically in the poorest parts of the country and force them to accept 50% of students from low-income households. Every 11-year-old would be eligible to apply to their closest grammar school and low-income children would be bussed in free-of-charge. If you want the best education, you have to pay for it. As a country, we could do so much more in this field.

The teachers in them would have to have a minimum of 10 years of experience and would have been proven to have exceptional teaching abilities in their field. The application process would be tough, and they would be paid more than a state schoolteacher. The schools would also have more academic freedom than state schools and would be allowed to specialise in any STEM subject. Admission would be based on academic ability so the best students from all walks of life would be studying together, rich and poor, white and non-white. The desired effect of this is obviously to increase social mobility among people from poor backgrounds and provide the best education to all students who study there giving them a head start in life.

State schools need to have more independence and school selection should no longer be a postcode lottery. I think having schools in an LEA compete with each other for students could be one way to solve this. The choice doesn’t have to be overly expansive. Pit three or four schools in close proximity up against one another and people will quickly start flocking to the best. The same concept needs to be applied to primary schools. Give people a choice and they will choose in their own interest. The bad schools will have to get their act together quicker and offer something more than poor GCSE results.

I’d also allow school selection based on faith and encourage faith schools to set up in big cities and accept students of other faiths. My belief is that if they offer a good education (which again would be largely independent from the state schools) people of different faiths would still apply and would be culturally enriched through religious-based teaching that might not be their own faith. The intent of this is to bring greater understanding of other faith / cultures while at the same time encouraging state schools to step up their game.

Finally, teachers’ salaries in state schools would be cut by 10% and they would be offered a yearly bonus of up to 20% (increasing to 30% in deprived areas) depending on students’ results. I don’t want to rag on teachers because there are plenty of amazing ones out there, but I think having a financial incentive would quickly show which teachers are putting in the work educating our youth and which ones aren’t. No bonus for 5 consecutive years and it’s time to look for another job. Finally, I would make teacher training for primary and secondary education free of charge provided that person worked in a deprived area for a minimum of three years.

3)      Expand the curriculum to teach much more about the British Empire with a focus on minorities who suffered as a result of it.

There is a shameful lack of knowledge among white Brits about the British empire. I learned absolutely nothing about it in school and this has to change as a matter of urgency. This issue has certainly come to light recently with the movement to abolish history. I think it’s time Britain more openly acknowledged its crimes during empire and that the perspectives of those directly affected by those crimes are heard. I think it’s of utmost importance to explain why the makeup of our nation is the way it is and the sacrifices of those who perished to make it the once richest country in the world. I would think of this as akin to black history month, but it would take a much more prominent role in history classes.

History needs to be remembered to make a better future, and I see this as an extremely important piece in the puzzle of combatting racist attitudes. It should be taught in a way that honours and remembers the victims of Empire and empowers all children to know who they are and where they came from. What may have divided us in the past, whatever suffering millions went through, we are stronger now and, today, Britain is a country which is better for unique ethnic makeup. It’s important to talk about figures from this time, look at them in an objective manner and discuss what was right or wrong and what consequences came of it. Judging history by modern standards will never end well.

4)      Overhaul the benefits system and reduce dependence on the state. 

I admit this is probably a little extreme, but I see it as one of the biggest issues in British society. Far too many people have become dependent on the welfare state and that needs to change if anything is ever going to improve. It creates a cycle of poverty which certainly affects those historically affected by racism disproportionately. I’m absolutely not saying that people should starve, but that the government needs to think of better ways to support single mothers and poor children, regardless of ethnicity. I would do this by using tax credits, food vouchers and as much support as possible for single mothers who work (i.e providing heavily subsidised private childcare or free after school clubs / support for children). Money, of course, should be given to the poor, but the bulk of it should be in voucher form to ensure that is used on buying food, paying bills and supporting children. There should also be a limit to how much someone can receive so that simply having numerous kids doesn’t = more money. It’s time people behaved responsibly.

The issue with fathers is a tricky one. On the one hand, I feel that having to pay child support can lead fathers to turn to crime, on the other hand, actions must have consequences. If you have a child and aren’t prepared to support the mother and baby, you deserve to pay in some way. Not taking responsibility for your actions should never be rewarded. Which leads me to my next point.

5)      Teach people to take personal responsibility for their actions. Civil education.

Another issue I feel may be controversial, but at the same time could have a big impact. It’s time to stop teaching people that everyone is special. It’s time to stop breeding a culture that has slowly become more critical of success and achievement. We need to foster talent and reward those who perform the best. If everybody is special, nobody is a winner. The same idea can be applied to different ethnicities. We are all different, but we are all British, and we can all strive to be the best people we can possibly be within that spectrum.

We need a robust civics education in school. Children are not getting prepared for the real world and we need to teach them about law and democracy better than we currently are. We need children to know how to pay tax, why it’s important, how to register to vote, about local politics rather than state politics or political ideologies, how to open a bank account, how to apply for a mortgage, human rights and housing rights. We need people who, when they leave school / college at 16 / 18, are ready to step into the world of work and living. In my view, we are not currently doing this well enough.

In addition to civics, we need to focus heavily on personal responsibility. We should show our children that actions have consequences and that just going out and doing whatever you want is not the way to live a successful life. They should be taught to respect other people, other minorities and themselves. We need to do more to teach children about the harm and damage caused by drugs and alcohol and the kind of life it can lead to. We need to teach kids about moderation and that you can’t always get everything you want.

Sex education plays a big role here too. Getting someone pregnant at 18 is not doing you, the girl or the baby any favours. It’s imperative that children understand the emotional, financial and life-changing consequences of having children and that doing so before you are mature or ready is basically like giving yourself a life sentence.

Honestly, I feel this would probably be the best way to deal with crime and poverty. Not directly, but indirectly. It’s my view that all of this should ideally be taught in the home, but because it isn’t being done, schools need to step in.

6)      Stop the media referring to people as Black / Asian / etc. British. If they have citizenship, they are British regardless of skin colour.

I really don’t see any need for this. Why do we need to focus on ethnicity when discussing crime or success? I think this needs to be completely removed from the media discourse as it does nothing but play to people’s pre-conceptions of race and ethnicity. Not much else to say here.

7)      Put the police back on the streets. Encourage better community co-operation. Proactive, not reactive policing.

Finally, tackling perceived systemic racism. The police have slowly been removed from our streets and stuffed into offices. Crime is no longer prevented; it’s dealt with after the fact. PSCOs are a poor half-step in my view. It’s time to get police back into the community, preventing crime and liaising with residents. I’m certain if there was more of a police presence on our streets, crime would go down. People don’t need to fear the police, but they need to be able to see them, they need to be able to talk to them, and they need to know they will not be allowed to get away with criminal behaviour. We need to move away from relying on CCTV and make an effort to prevent crimes before they happen. In fact, CCTV should be drastically reduced as I feel it has very little benefit for the amount it infringes on people’s rights.

I’d introduce more police on our streets (I don’t have a number) and would do the same thing I would do with teachers – free training and moderate financial benefits if you choose to work in a deprived area for a minimum of three years. I’d also reorganise PSCOs into officers who work directly with community leaders and aid and assist in tackling potential problems before they arise. A go-between between the police and the community. There needs to be a bit of give and take on both sides and the police needs to be a trusted and respected institution again. Building up trust is critical in tackling a lot of the problems that currently exist in urban Britain, and while this idea might not be perfect, I feel it’s a practical step that could actually garner some positive results.

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

Explanation of why Black people may face harsher sentencing. Starts at around 13 mins. 

 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

41 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

It's really difficult to notice things that don't happen to you.

It's not difficult to notice that while racism still exists, it is not systematic. "Lived experiences" are not what a movement should be built on, especially when they have no tangible and quantifiable goals. "End racism" is not a practical idea that can be implement. Practical problems need practical solutions and so far I have seen very few of those. 

14 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

Uhhhh... Am I missing something?

Because I see a massive gap between the Black catagory and everything else? Especially in the stop and search chart.

Stop and search for Asian and Black minorities was higher than the arrest rate under the Cameron government. In the past few years, they have both fallen to below the arrest rate and generally have been much more proportional over the past five years, under the arrest rate in fact. So I would hope that this issue, and it certainly was one, has been dealt with. 

13 minutes ago, Goron_3 said:

I just wanted to share the following quote which I saw recently:

"Systemic racism in the UK goes beyond policing and the criminal justice system. It is deeply embedded into our education, our housing, our medical care, our immigration policy. The country likes to emphasise its ‘tolerant’ attitude to minorities, expecting applause, and it is almost as if tolerance does not imply begrudgingly putting up with people you would rather not have in your country but cannot avoid. Tolerance does not call for anti-racism."

Where is the racism, at a state level, in any of those things? This is a genuine question, I'm not calling you out. If systematic racism is not identified (like Will's point about Black Britons often receiving harsher sentences), what can be done? 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

1 hour ago, killthenet said:

If you don't believe institutional or systemic racism exists then you clearly haven't heard of the Windrush scandal, or read up on stop and search statistics. Systemic racism is still very much a problem in the UK.

The stop and search rates per 1000 population line up with the arrest rate per 1000 population. What's racist about that? In fact, they have fallen much closer in line over the past 10 years.

Chart #3 - https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/stop-and-search/latest

Chart #3 - https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest

I still maintain that police brutality or racism is not represented in statistics, and is instead merely a perception. 

Windrush was an absolute embarrassment, started by Labour and implemented by the Tories. It aimed to target illegal immigrants and was pitiful both in concept and execution and should never been allowed to happen. It was a fuck up of unbelievable proportions but I disagree that it was systematically racist. The people responsible for it should be punished to the full extent of the law. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-immigration-detention-home-office-leave-uk-become-homeless-romania-brexit-latest-a8025646.html

Quote

Analysis earlier this month showed that more than 5,000 EU citizens have been removed from the UK between June 2016 and June 2017, a 20 per cent increase on the previous 12 months, though the number has been rising since the Conservatives came to power in 2010.

Do you have any specific law you could refer to in the U.K that is systematically racist?

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

12 minutes ago, will' said:

I’ll come back on everything else tomorrow, as it’s getting a little late here, but just quickly on this one point.

Sorry, I didn’t at all mean to imply that you were a racist here, just that the connection between race and that general thinking put in that way could be seen as such. I didn’t mean to cause any offense by the comment, and certainly don’t think you are a racist - I’ll add more detail when I have time for a fuller response to everything else too.

No harm done, I should have explained myself more clearly. 

[Skin Colour, Races and Racism]

4 hours ago, Animal said:

I agree and disagree with this. I think it depends entirely on where you do, it's a grey area. I don't know if you've read it before but I have genuinely worked in a place where a staff member higher up than my position treated me differently because of the colour of my skin. To be quite honest with you, even though I've said I've always had a fair chance at everything, it is quite possible that the reason why I never got the promotion to assistant manager was because of my colour (referring to "GOT YOU, YOU BLACK BASTARD" incident) mentioned above as I was quite dedicated to the job (as I am with any job- even though it was a crap job) and I was the best in my shop at selling stuff and training the staff whilst the other guy, who was white and the racist one I was talking about, who got it even admitted he wasn't as good and didn't understand why. Now I'm not saying that this is true, which is why I simply dismissed it, but I am saying it's a possibility but then it could also be a possibility that the manager wanted me to focus more on sales. I don't think there's a clear cut reason for anything but it's under a grey area and I think it's that grey area that needs to be addressed- as in I think it's the fact that there's even a possibility of it in the first place that needs to be addressed.

This is honestly disgusting and absolutely should not happen. It's extremely disheartening and depressing that it does and that you had to experience it. I can understand completely why people would want to dismiss it and wouldn't want to go through the hassle of trying to sort it out in a legal manner. This is one area that could absolutely be addressed using pressure and changing laws to make it easier for people who've experienced this kind of racism to come forward and have the infringements on their rights dealt with. 

4 hours ago, Animal said:

I do agree with this. As I've stated, all I really want is for people to see me as me and not as a brown person first. I don't think that will end any time soon though as I do think that there are people who will judge me for my colour before judging me as a person. Like I've stated before, I don't think (to my knowledge, at least) I've lost out due to my colour and I think I've had a fair go at most things but it's the way people are that I'd like to change. I get judged for being mixed race and because I sometimes get mistaken for being Asian, I get judged on that too. I just want people to not see a walking stereotype and to just see me. I expect everyone else feels the same way too. It's just a weird world.

This is what I want to see too. I hate the fact that we seem to have moved backwards (in my opinion) in recent years and started to focus much more closely on colour and heritage, especially at a time when things seemed to be changing albeit slowly. I always judge people based on the content of their character and would always expect others to do the same. I think that's the least anyone can ask and people who don't do that should be called out on it. Race should be the last thing on anyone's mind. I appreciate your in-depth, nuanced post and agree wholeheartedly with many of the points you have raised. 

4 hours ago, Animal said:

I totally agree with this. It's crazy how things are, isn't it? I think it's good to open dialogue and hear different views but only if they are respectful. I know people who agree and disagree with BLM and the way it's going and I respect that. If I'm honest with you, this conversation has been one of the few where there's so many different opinions but everyone is respecting it rather than shouting over each other or trying to "cancel" each other. I'm genuinely enjoying people's viewpoints, even if some do differ from mine. I genuinely do think everybody here in this discussion is coming from a good place and means well, which is such a welcome change.

This is what I find most distasteful about most of the BLM activists. And the rioting. And this:

Quote

We’re guided by a commitment to dismantle imperialism, capitalism, white-supremacy, patriarchy and the state structures that disproportionately harm black people in Britain and around the world. We build deep relationships across the diaspora and strategise to challenge the rise of the authoritarian right-wing across the world, from Brazil to Britain.

The fact that open Marxists are at the head of this operation has me extremely sceptical about their real intentions, and given the way the past month has gone, I find very little of what BLM has had to say actually have anything to do with improving race relations or the situation of Black people in either the UK or the US. 

5 hours ago, will' said:

I just don’t get how you can use this one example and claim racism isn’t a problem in either country. Do you think the millions of people getting behind BLM and other initiatives have got it all wrong?

I don't think they've got it all wrong, but I do think they're taking the wrong approach, mainly for the reasons mentioned above. I believe I can use this example because if the U.K. was a racist country, the makeup of income / relative success would likely be much different. 

5 hours ago, will' said:

I guess if you take the view that police treat black people better than they treat other races then you can make the argument that the law is on your side in issues concerning racism. From what I see it would appear that that is not the case though. In the UK black people are likely to receive longer sentences for the same crime as white people. Where are you taking these stats from? It seems to be a very different position to what is mostly being reported right now.

The stats regarding crime and police brutality are widely available. If I've got it wrong, I'd be happy to be proven incorrect. The point about longer sentences may be a valid one as I see it. And something obviously needs to be done about it. Of course, all factors need to be taken into account (such as historical criminal records), but if this is the case, then pressure should be applied to the judiciary to change this.

5 hours ago, will' said:

We’ve had generations haven’t we? If you take a generation to be 30 years then that’s 2 (and change) since 1950 and 6 since slavery was abolished in the 1830s. Shouldn’t this be long enough? Is income by race the only measure we need to judge this by? I would disagree that racial barriers to success have been removed simply because you have some examples of some people being able to earn a little more than white people.

You’ve taken one data point and declared racism solved.

So how long should it be and what other methods do you propose we judge this by? Number of BAME people in government? Number of BAME people in high positions? In the Police? In the media? Should it be more than the proportional percentage of population numbers? The same? Is having fewer BAME people in such positions evidence of systematic racism? Focusing on ethnicity before anything else, such as ability, ideas and intelligence doesn't seem all too smart to me. Progress is being made, this is undeniable. Is it too slow? How can we make it faster in a practical way? Changing your behaviour or thinking is far too loose of a method, in my opinion. I could think of some practical solutions, but I'll maybe post them later as I'd need to properly sit down and think about them more deeply.  

Where did I declare that racism was solved? I clearly said racism still exists, and it does, but that institutional or systematic racism doesn't in America and Britain.  

5 hours ago, will' said:

I think the last part of this is quite racist in itself, you’re basically saying some minorities have a cultural problem because of their views on the police - and you think we don’t have an issue with racism?

So if we can't discuss issues, how will we solve them? It seems to me that some people have decided "racism" is to blame for all society's ills. Growing up without a father IS a cultural problem. It's also a problem that affects Black communities in the UK and US more than any other community. I hate to break this down to skin colour because I don't believe it's a "skin" issue, it's a cultural problem, which also affects whites and other minorities. So please, hold off on labelling me as a racist, because I most certainly am not. Who do you think has the biggest issue with policing? Is it a real issue or perceived? Do we have any evidence for it? I believe it's perceived, but I'm again glad to be proven otherwise. 

5 hours ago, will' said:

The American Dream for the most part doesn’t exist. Yes it’s technically possible to change your circumstances in a generation, but it’s also possible that you’ll win the lottery - it doesn’t happen for most people. Just because the possibility of something exists doesn’t mean everyone is starting from a level playing field and their are no barriers to success. Just because there may be bigger problems doesn’t mean others don’t exist.

If you finish school, work hard and don't have kids before you get married, you will be able to live a good life. This is true for all races. Again, much more difficult if you're coming from a working class background, but in no way is it impossible. The American Dream does not just mean being super rich, it also means being able to live your own life in the way you choose, free from government interference. 

5 hours ago, will' said:

From what I can tell those countries have laws against racism, so by your earlier arguments couldn’t you just take it as there are some racist people but it’s not really a problem as the law protects people from it? Of course it’s much worse in those places than the US/UK, but I don’t think you can say we’re doing OK because some other countries are worse.

Of course they do have such laws, but these are new democracies that haven't had the time to develop as ours and the US's have. Corruption still exists in many structures of government and law enforcement in these countries, especially in Hungary. I think this chart is quite telling (only shows Poland and Hungary) https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/03/14/around-the-world-more-say-immigrants-are-a-strength-than-a-burden/ So while these countries have "Western" law and democracy, attitudes are still a long way behind the West. It could be argued that this makes situations like those @Animal experienced far more common. In addition, as these countries are much more mono-ethnic than the UK or US, victims of racism are, I would argue, more unlikely to find any social or public support, even if the discrimination happens at an institutional level. 

Latvia, for example, where I live, discriminates openly between citizens and non-citizens. Both of these groups happen to be white (ethnic Latvian and ethnic Russian). For an ethnic Russian to get citizenship, even if they were born in Latvia before 1991, they must pass a language test, a history test and swear allegiance to Latvia. Without citizenship, they are not entitled to work in government positions, not entitled to certain benefits and cannot travel abroad outside the EU, Russia and a handful of other countries. This is systemic racism (maybe discrimination is more apt) in my view as there are quite clearly two systems for two different types of people. And this is in modern day Europe. Is it ignored because the victims of this system are white? Who knows. However, from the other side of the coin, Latvia is a relatively new democracy with an extremely brutal and troubled past where Russian communists occupied the country for almost 50 years. It makes sense for Latvians to protect the interests of the state and to at least try and build a monolithic culture in what is a very small country, which has a sizeable minority population (30%) of a nation which was a former occupier. Ethnic Russians do have the means, funds and support available to them to assimilate if they choose to. Some do, some don't. They have three options: stay here and become citizens and enjoy all the rights afforded to Latvians, remain non-citizens and get by as best they can, or go back to Russia indefinitely, which the vast majority would rather not do as they know life in Russia would be much, much harder. The hard truth though, is that the country openly discriminates against a minority of people. 

5 hours ago, will' said:

My experience in Japan as a white person was great, I was treated like a VIP by most Japanese people. As a non-Japanese I didn’t always get the same treatment or eligibility for things as I wasn’t entitled to them - that was never related to my race though. 

I'm pleased that you had this experience, genuinely. We're all on this board because we fell in love with a Japanese titan. It's always been my dream to go there. Unfortunately, I know of other white people who have not been afforded the same luxury. In the early 90s my uncle was not allowed to marry his Japanese girlfriend as her father wouldn't allow it. He left the country permanently soon after having lived there for five years. Anecdotal, yes, but still disgusting. I also wonder how Japanese people treat ethnic Korean or Chinese people, whether they would treat them in the same way they treat a Westerner? 

Edit: forgot to add the part about statues and history here @will'. I'm in 100% agreement with you there. 

[Formula 1 2020 Season]

I'm so hyped for the new season. This is the longest I've gone in 26 years without watching an F1 race, the wait has been killing me, but I have enjoyed the classic races and some of the e-sports stuff on YT. 

1 hour ago, will' said:

The new Williams looks great:

Just hope it goes a bit better than the last few years.

Given that we’re a week away from the start of the season are any of you guys up for a bit of a predictions game? Was thinking we could pick top 5 in each race + pole, fastest lap maybe some others then give points for each race? If a few people are interested I’ll put together a draft of how we could do it.

Honestly, I preferred the ROKiT livery, or the Colgate livery as some people affectionately referred to it as  This one is OK, better than others, but nothing particularly striking or special IMO. 

I'll be up for a predictions game! I'll predict Austria now and then the next 4 races if we should do it all before round 1. If not, we can do it on a week-by-week basis.

1) Verstappen
2) Leclerc
3) Hamilton
4) Perez
5) Bottas
Pole: Leclerc - FL: Verstappen.

I do think we might see a bit of a re-run of the last year, Mercedes have been slow in Austria in the past couple of years with their overheating problem and I think it would be great if Max and Charles came out fighting immediately. I still feel Lewis will win the WC and Mercedes will take the CC, but this track may add a bit of spice to the early standings. Here's hoping.