Skin Colour, Races and Racism

[Nicktendo]

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 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Nicktendo

[Sheikah]

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

8 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

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

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.

8 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

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

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.

8 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

It’s almost impossible for anyone to be upper class aristocracy.

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.

8 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

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.

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.

8 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

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

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.

8 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

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. 

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

[Nicktendo]

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. 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Nicktendo

[Sheikah]

38 minutes ago, Nicktendo said:

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 changed 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. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio came very close in 2016 and are extremely popular among many white Republicans. Not black, granted, but not white. 

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.

Quote

Cherry-picked or not, white people are not at an advantage. Why are you focusing only on black people? Cherry-picking.

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

Quote

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.

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.

Quote

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. 

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.

Quote

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

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, and why.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Sheikah

[Nicktendo]

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. 

 

[Ashley]

 

20 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

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? 

 

14 hours ago, Animal said:

Another thing I would love to add to this discussion to throw it out there is something I've noticed today. Why is it, in the UK, black movies are seen to be hood films where they talk street slang? Blue Story, for instance, is about two rival gangs and features a black-oriented cast. Same goes for films such as Kidulthood, Adulthood, Brotherhood, etc. You never see a black-oriented UK cast doing a comedy or horror film. Recently, the U.S. have done it through Jordan Peele doing Us and Get Out so it's possible. I would love to see more of that because every time I see films relating to gang wars and street crimes, they always seem to mostly have a black cast.

Systemic does not just mean state level (although the Home Office is very much systemically racist, a point they've acknowledged a few times but done little to fix), it means within a system and Animal has (inadvertently) brought up a good example of systemic racism. The UK film industry under represents Black and ethnic minorities and those within it are largely skewered towards IT and VFX and within London (which itself is more diverse leading to a 'naturally' more diverse candidate pool) [https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/lums/work-foundation/PEC-Evidence-synthesis-scoping_Work-Foundation-FINAL.pdf pg 38 onwards] so we're starting from a point where the industry as a whole is uneven. 

In order to get a studio film (or even studio-indie such as Fox Searchlight, but I'm excluding independent films as that's a completely different kettle of fish but I'll circle back to it below) made you need money and support. Where do you get either/both of those from? The established system, so if that's already majority white then it creates a disadvantage at the first step. A good way to increase diversity is to have someone with power promote it. Shonda Rhimes (of Grey's Anatomy, Scandal, How To Get Away With Murder, that Britney Spears Crossroads movie) fame is a good example of this in TV; she has championed diverse productions (both sides of the camera) but she's only been able to do so because she fought her way there and made sure others could join her. And yes, before anyone says "well she did it so it's possible" just think about how she's an outlier amongst her peers such as J.J. Abrams, Mike Judge, Greg Berlanti, Charlie Brooker,Vince Gilligan, David E. Kelly, Chuck Lorre etc. Compare all those with the relatively smaller number of BIPOC showrunners (Mindy Kalling, Ava DuVernay, Gloria Caledron Kellett etc) and you'll see its not an even game.

A good way to work your way up the ranks is through awards recognition (it is not and should not be the be-all-and-end-all but it is certainly a way that people get noticed) and well, just look at the stats for Black nominations (yet alone wins!) in BAFTA [https://pearnkandola.com/app/uploads/2018/07/BAFTA-Analysis-New-House-Style.pdf page 10]

So to answer Animal's query, films that are greenlit (as opposed to self-made productions) are based on what studios think audiences want. If you have a system that is predominantly white, it's going to end up reflecting their opinions and not the audience's (because they can't possibly know what everyone will want, yet alone people they have no way of knowing their experiences) which is why we end up with a system where most films featuring Black-orientated casts are typically based on gangs; because those with the power to okay productions believe that is what the audience as a whole would buy into; in other words they don't believe white audiences (as a whole) would want to watch a romcom about two Black people from Sudbury. If anyone thinks that might be stretching it and making an unfair assumption that as a collective British society believes that Black people are defined by street gang affiliations look at the Blue Story incident; that film was briefly banned by multiple cinema chains because of a stabbing and they inferred that Black cinema = stabbings (even though there has, tragically, been violence committed at screenings of a whole variety of films). 

The only British film off the top of my head which isn't a drama entirely focused on Black street gangs is Attack the Block (which is comedy/horror) and has some Black leads, but they're still in a minority within the cast. It was set in a Brixton council block where as of 2015 30% of Brixton residents were Black [https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ssh-lambeth-demography-2015.pdf pg 6]. Annoyingly that paper shows deprivation by ward but not diversity within those wards (so we could look at how well the film accurately reflects the diversity of where it was set in its lead cast) but it shows Coldharbour as most deprived and that is where a lot of the housing estates are (and one was in the news recently!)  

And before anyone argues "well if the only films that do well are ones with street gangs then they're right" just go look into issues regarding distribution, number of screens (and locations of said screens) where outlier films end up, advertising budgets, the makeup of market research panels etc. That's the point, there's issues within every aspect that builds to a bigger - systemtic - problem.

This is just a potted ramble through one sector but hopefully it starts showing how systemic racism permeates through an industry. Now it may not be intentional at this point (I don't see the head of Warner Brothers saying "let's not help Black people") but the problem was the industry was built at a time when racism was explicit and the system was deeply ingrained by the time any sort of civil rights movements came along. As such you now have an industry where those that work in it are majority white, those that are recognised for their work are majority white, those that are in power are majority white etc. 

And I didn't even touch on intersectional issues which compounds the problems.

[Nicktendo]

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. 

[Beast]

3 hours ago, Ashley said:

So to answer Animal's query, films that are greenlit (as opposed to self-made productions) are based on what studios think audiences want. If you have a system that is predominantly white, it's going to end up reflecting their opinions and not the audience's (because they can't possibly know what everyone will want, yet alone people they have no way of knowing their experiences) which is why we end up with a system where most films featuring Black-orientated casts are typically based on gangs; because those with the power to okay productions believe that is what the audience as a whole would buy into; in other words they don't believe white audiences (as a whole) would want to watch a romcom about two Black people from Sudbury. If anyone thinks that might be stretching it and making an unfair assumption that as a collective British society believes that Black people are defined by street gang affiliations look at the Blue Story incident; that film was briefly banned by multiple cinema chains because of a stabbing and they inferred that Black cinema = stabbings (even though there has, tragically, been violence committed at screenings of a whole variety of films). 

I'll be honest with you and say I was entirely against Blue Story in the first place because of that reason. I had watched the YouTube video before and knew what to expect and I thought it would be problematic. I was all for banning the film because I thought the message wasn't clear at all. I just believed that it would depict people of colour in such a bad light- and it did. I believed in the message it was trying to send but after seeing it, I felt like it glorified that kind of lifestyle. Same with 1 Day. They tried to take an approach saying "this world is dangerous" but I didn't think it did it so well.

I honestly feel like progress is being made with movies like Us and Get Out, showing it's possible to make an interesting movie without having to depict black people as thugs or involved in street gangs in anyway. I wouldn't mind seeing a rom-com involving black people or what have you but I also think that this would be the way forward too. I end up rolling my eyes every time I see a movie like that and I always wonder why they couldn't do it. Even with comedies such as My Wife and Kids, they're a black family that hardly (if at all) bring their colour into it and it's a funny show. I don't know why the UK can't do that and take a chance on it- I'd want to see a musical or something like that where gangs aren't involved because that's just a minority in itself.

3 hours ago, Ashley said:

The only British film off the top of my head which isn't a drama entirely focused on Black street gangs is Attack the Block (which is comedy/horror) and has some Black leads, but they're still in a minority within the cast.

And even then, weren't they a kind of gang themselves that went around stealing stuff? (I haven't seen the film in years but I'm sure they were commiting crimes or something).

3 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

3 hours 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. 

Okay, I'll freely admit I'm not exactly the sharpest tool in the box. Can someone explain, in layman's terms, what that actually is?

[Ashley]

Intersectionality is when someone has more than one 'aspect' that would affect their lived experiences; so a Black queer woman would face different issues from a white heterosexual woman (but both would face issues that affect women) and even different experiences from a Black heterosexual woman. The argument mostly comes up in discussions around feminism (but is by no means limited to it) as there's arguments that some feminists are exclusionary so they don't care about (or at least campaign for) intersectional issues such as how Black women have a different experience from white women etc. Similarly you see it with racism in the gay community which on the surface you would think they should be more open (as both queer people and Black/ethnic minority people face discrimination) but its still prevalent and thus they're not considering/respecting intersectionality. 

Oh and yeah I believe they were a gang in ATB, but the director tried to show them in a positive light (or at least not a street thugs kind of light) plus the genre was focused on the comedy/horror rather than the crime.

[Beast]

Okay so basically it's like having one thing in common but being treated differently? Okay, I think I get it. So a black gay man and a white gay man would face different issues but both could face homophobia?

[Ashley]

5 minutes ago, Animal said:

Okay so basically it's like having one thing in common but being treated differently? Okay, I think I get it. So a black gay man and a white gay man would face different issues but both could face homophobia?

Yeah essentially. It's an acknowledgement that because you share one (or more) common characteristics doesn't mean these aren't also impact/changed by other characteristics.

So a wealthy white gay male would face certain issues that a working class white gay male would, but the latter would face other issues the former wouldn't while also facing some similar issues that a working class white heterosexual male would.

[Will]

@Ashley - that’s a good summary on institutional racism that I think makes it easy to see how groups can make decisions that while not intentionally racist continue the cycle of discrimination. It’s really important to distinguish this from law and policy, which I think a lot of people miss when thinking about this.

The intersectionality is also very interesting. It’s something that I never knew had a name though would have assumed to be the case. I guess one of the problems is how far do you break a persons individual situation down and at what point does it make any action meaningless as there will always be some additional division between whatever group it is that you’re looking at. I suppose we just have to look at the biggest problems and then work down the list?? I’m not sure.

@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?

[Beast]

I agree with @will' on not dropping out of discussions. I genuinely find them interesting when people have different views and opinions and it was what I wanted in the first place when I created this thread- to discuss such a sensitive subject with respect for each other, with no fear of judgement and no insults being thrown around. @Nicktendo, I would honestly like to know your views.

[sumo73]

This discussion needs to continue and a good discussion welcomes all but not at the expense of silencing or labelling others because of wrongthink. Nothing can be achieved by this.

[Nicktendo]

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. 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by Nicktendo

[Ashley]

I disagree with the first point. The aim of intersectionality is to address these problems by acknowledging them (you can of course argue it's success, but that is the aim at least). You don't make any change by ignoring things or pretending they don't exist and intersectionality looks to address how societal impacts are compounded dependent upon your background.

[Will]

I agree with a lot of what you say @Nicktendo. One of the things I really came to hate about (some) people arguing from the “left” was the inability for them to listen to any opposing view point and quickly label you some sort of “ist” if you were even slightly outside of their version of correct. I particularly found this to be the case in America and was actually one of the contributing factors in me leaving.

7 hours ago, Nicktendo said:

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.

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.

[Beast]

@Nicktendo, I'm glad you've decided to carry on with the discussion. Genuinely. It's been quite interesting to me to read everybody's points because I'm actually getting a lot of different people who I've discussed this topic with saying the same thing as you (of black and white colour) saying they're all for anti-racism but against Black Lives Matter as a movement. If I'm speaking freely, I really don't see the point of the marches because there's no unified voice, which I believe is something I spoke about before here. I shared stuff such as anti-racism stuff for all races and stuff about injustices and what have you but when it came to the marches, I didn't believe in them because I didn't believe it was the way to go. The marches needed a unifier- a strong, solid voice stating what should be done and how to be better and from that, you can agree or disagree. The many people I spoke to who went to these marches didn't honestly know why they went. All they said was "I'm going because your life matters too" and when I asked them to elaborate, they just said "We want equality". I asked "Ideally, how would you want that to happen?" and they couldn't answer. And that's my problem. People want equality and people want justice but don't know how or what to do to enable that. As I've stated, for me, it's more the people than police or businesses (I'm not stating it doesn't happen but I'm talking through experience) and you can't change people through marching aimlessly. You change them through open, honest and respectful dialogue.

I think the issue for me is something @Nicktendo brushed on earlier. Everyone is very quick to "cancel" everyone because of something they did years ago. I'm talking shit that happened 20 years ago, not shit that happened in today's society, which I think is so fucking stupid. The person you were 20 years ago could very well be different to the person you are now. The thing that I keep seeing is people bringing the same shit up from the past and people apologising for the same shit again and again and not letting it lie. 

For instance, Shane Dawson, a well-known YouTuber, has apologised quite a few times for making really offensive jokes (like using blackface quite a few times) and for saying "nigger" in a few videos that contained Shanna Malcolm, a black Jamaican YouTuber (which, I may add, she had encouraged him a lot to say it to her and she had even addressed it recently saying she didn't see it as an issue and still doesn't). Now, the issue I have with this is that he's apologised quite a few times before in the past for doing it as people keep bringing it up and it's now got to the point where people have actually slated his constant apologising for his past. For me personally, I was fine with him apologising the first time because it seemed he was genuinely sorry and that's fine. The majority of people who had an issue with it was fine with it and moved on...then it's brought up again...and he apologises again...people accept it and move on....then it happens again...you see where this is going. I always do wonder about cancel culture and just how damaging it really is. How can we expect people to grow as a person and learn if you're constantly placing them in a category of them being a bad person because of the stuff they done in the past? Was it shitty? Yeah, it was. Did he recognise it and apologise? Yeah, he did. Should it be brought up constantly if he's already recognised his faults and apologised? Absolutely not.

 

[Beast]

4 minutes ago, will' said:

One of the things I really came to hate about (some) people arguing from the “left” was the inability for them to listen to any opposing view point and quickly label you some sort of “ist”

Yes! I hate this too! It's like saying "You don't have my view, you must be this!" and it just doesn't work that way!

[Nicktendo]

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. 

[Jonnas]

On 02/07/2020 at 6:04 PM, Nicktendo said:

The two main problems I see with Postmodernism,
[...]

The people in Momentum were some of the most vile

[...]

All you have to do is look at ResetEra

[...]

I am 100% against Black Lives Matter.

To be honest, it's that last point that loses me. I get it, you joined and believed in movements that were hypocritical at best and vile at worst. I myself have seen some otherwise socially progressive left-leaning folk go on awful anti-muslim tirades (because atheism is worth more than basic respect, apparently), while simultaneously praise the likes of Hugo Chávez (because ideology matters more than blatant authoritarianism, apparently) and know that their views weren't uncommon...

But when you look at BLM in a vacuum, it's far more specific than "leftism", "postmodernism" or "communism", or whatever broad political current you can think of: BLM is against police brutality. A grave problem in the USA that disproportionately affects black people, because even if no shots are fired, the police are far more likely to harass black people/communities due to prejudice. The movement is called so because tragedies like George Floyd's need to be treated with the weight they deserve (just a reminder that, before these protests, the officer responsible for his death had something like 14+ complaints levied against him. All of them ignored, because complaints didn't matter, it seemed). These things are frequent, and need to become scandals, but simply don't: they need to "matter", hence the name.

Maybe the debate on BLM is just different in Britain. After all, I've seen the protesters in Hong Kong co-opt the movement due to similar experiences with the police. And a brief google search tells me a lot of UK BLM's position on the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but very little on black people's lives in Britain. But from where I'm standing, your admonishment does not feel like a logical sequitur to everything else you mentioned.

(The movement fell flat in Portugal because the people joining the protests had no idea how the subject related to Portuguese reality. I find this ironic, because we had a case of excessive use of force last year on a predominantly black neighbourhood, and yet nobody saw it fit to bring that up. That event was fascinating as well, but that's a bigger tangent)

[LazyBoy]

Great discussion you guys are having in here, lovely to read along.

@Nicktendo's point about the destruction/creation balance of post-modernism was one that particularly resonated with me. I've seen with BLM and other movements a complete lack of ideas, a dearth of leaders willing to hang their reputations on proposals, and I struggle to comprehend why this is. Defund the police seems to be the standout from BLM, but that seems to be it - hardly a long term solution to address root inequality. But maybe I've missed something?

But further to the idea of tearing things down, it's the tearing down of people that gets me, and in particular those on the 'other side'. So case in point the guy who arranged the 'white lives matter' banner to fly over the Burnley game a couple weeks backs. He's found and fired very quickly from his job. Where is the positive progression in this situation? Are we expecting him to reform after this? If not then it's surely just an act of cruel retribution, unbecoming of a humanitarian movement. But if you're expecting reform then I can't imagine it will work. White working class male, most possibly no less left behind then any other resident of a former industrial area in post Thatcher Britain, now pushed even further out of the mainstream and into the hands of groups who feed off the anger and isolation of the forgotten. Is the humane, even productive measure not to educate whilst taking solidarity with his own condition? Lots of people are hurting, shouldn't we be bringing them in rather than pushing them out?

[Beast]

3 hours ago, LazyBoy said:

Great discussion you guys are having in here, lovely to read along.

@Nicktendo's point about the destruction/creation balance of post-modernism was one that particularly resonated with me. I've seen with BLM and other movements a complete lack of ideas, a dearth of leaders willing to hang their reputations on proposals, and I struggle to comprehend why this is. Defund the police seems to be the standout from BLM, but that seems to be it - hardly a long term solution to address root inequality. But maybe I've missed something?

But further to the idea of tearing things down, it's the tearing down of people that gets me, and in particular those on the 'other side'. So case in point the guy who arranged the 'white lives matter' banner to fly over the Burnley game a couple weeks backs. He's found and fired very quickly from his job. Where is the positive progression in this situation? Are we expecting him to reform after this? If not then it's surely just an act of cruel retribution, unbecoming of a humanitarian movement. But if you're expecting reform then I can't imagine it will work. White working class male, most possibly no less left behind then any other resident of a former industrial area in post Thatcher Britain, now pushed even further out of the mainstream and into the hands of groups who feed off the anger and isolation of the forgotten. Is the humane, even productive measure not to educate whilst taking solidarity with his own condition? Lots of people are hurting, shouldn't we be bringing them in rather than pushing them out?

This is a good point and is something I've brought up myself IRL. Everyone who is saying stuff like "YOU'RE A RACIST!" or "SACK THE RACIST!" or what have you is not being progressive. Instead of rowing, try to level down and ask why they think this is.

There's no clear ending to this and to me, I feel it's more divided than ever. Personally, I'm starting to feel people think it's black v white and not everyone v racism. 

[Rummy]

Not gonna pick you apart by arghument Nicktendo but seeing a lot of disingenousness grom you throughout the thread. Lots and lots og wrguments stats etc put out by you and your instant 'nope im out!' at literally two words shows something I see in a lot of people who don't have much interest in *actually* progressing things.

You're obviously intelligent(even if you insist on being foolish ) but many of your arguments are riddled with flaws such as false equivalences or assuming perfect impartiality/exclusivity etc. When these gaping flaws have been pointed out to you you have merely just rambled off a load of other stuff.

Lets for example take the idea of oppurtunity and how any black person(let alone the intersectional issues of a black female) can become president(of US). Or even that a female could become prime minister(of UK).

Why has this throughout ALL the presidents and prime ministers only netted us to date Margaret Thatcher Theresa May and Barack Obama with no black Prime Ministers and no female Presidents so far.

Are you really going to tell me that is all pure chance? Or are black people or women people simply just incapable? You cannot have it both ways. The bias definitely exists - and whilst people post here and articulate themselves to explain why your claims are incorrect you often ignore them and simply ramble some other stuff afterwards; implying because you have lots of stats videos claims etc. that they are therefore objectively more truthful powerful and correct.

 

They are not. Again I won't redo the work of multiple others here but take that as the meta-critique of your work so far. I don't have an issue with your conservative views but it seems to have an impact upon your engagement and certain respect for certain people - and given the whole nature of this topic here and the idea of a blindness contributing to all this in society it's worth considering - even earlier when will' pointed out the racist nature of something you actually typed you took it to read he was saying YOU were a racist - I don't think others here were reading it the same.

 

@Beast post so huge hard to quote but the reason I was raising 'inter-racial racism' (ie me and indians just as an example) as it were was again not for a point; but to tell the story. Some here may never have known or seen it.

Has anyone other than me and Will watched The School That Tried to End Racism on 4od yet?? It should basically be like the recommended reading for this thread tbh

[Beast]

1 hour ago, Rummy said:

Has anyone other than me and Will watched The School That Tried to End Racism on 4od yet?? It should basically be like the recommended reading for this thread tbh

I watched it. Honestly, I found myself relating to the mixed race girl so much. Like, she was finding it hard to find her identity and didn't know where she fit in or whether she had to be one or the other. I felt that. It hurt my heart seeing her and the ginger lad be torn from this. I also found it interesting because when the groups happened between white people and other ethnicities, all the black students were together and laughing and stuff, I actually noticed the Asian students finding it difficult to join (which they noted in the second episode).

I also noticed the white student asking the black student about what was and wasn't appropriate when asking questions and how she was scared of asking genuine questions because of labels and stuff. See, my stance on that, just like with anything, is its fine as long as you're not disrespectful with it and use it in a derogatory manner. 

It's been interesting.

Edited July 10, 2020 by Beast