P
Paddy1989
Guest
You know you could read it, it’s their words not mine. Have a readPaddy1989:
The generalization of fear…
Last edited:
- Status
H
Hume
Guest
That’s what most are trying to do.Hume:
No-one is telling you to enjoy the status quo, just stop with the leftist nonsense and people could actually show that BLM truly matters by fixing the REAL issues that affect these communitiesPaddy1989:
“So shut up and enjoy the status quo”.
“No thanks” is certainly how I’d feel.
The violence seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Why? As I know that no one speaks for BLM since it’s not an organization, I already know it’s fear-bait tripe.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
By defunding the police? By taking over police precincts like they have done in Seattle extorting local businesses? By tearing down western culture to the point where people are less associating this with George Floyd and more about those on the left tearing down aspects of society they don’t like regardless how everyone else feels.Paddy1989:
That’s what most are trying to do.Hume:
No-one is telling you to enjoy the status quo, just stop with the leftist nonsense and people could actually show that BLM truly matters by fixing the REAL issues that affect these communitiesPaddy1989:
“So shut up and enjoy the status quo”.
“No thanks” is certainly how I’d feel.
The violence seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Why? As I know that no one speaks for BLM since it’s not an organization, I already know it’s fear-bait tripe.
BLM isn’t fixing these communities when it is widely believed that the biggest issue affecting these communities leading to low education, poverty and high crime is the lack of fathers in families. Going back to Christ and his teachings are the obvious answers which BLM are hostile to. BLM is an organisation by the way
The fact is the narrative is a lie, there isn’t widespread institutional racism across the US and UK and there is no need to tear down it’s culture. The fact is these groups want to tear down western culture in favor of their own agenda. This is how people are seeing them in light of these actions.
Last edited:
S
Servant31
Guest
I’m sure some are. There are complainers and problem children in any group. And I agree they shouldn’t be enabled. However there really is an issue. The statistics bear that put in many metrics. Why not attack the problem. If we wait until it’s the perfect time/situation we will never get anywhere. I see a good opportunity.
Last edited:
P
Paddy1989
Guest
Attack the problem affecting black communities is the last thing these groups care about. Listen there is some great Black conservatives who have talked about this and the breakdown of the family being the biggest issue. I’d advise you to listen, it’s people like this that expose the lie and who want to face the problem by bringing God back into society. Not by pumping it full of more money which has done little to help this issue and advocating LBGTQI+ polices which are hostile to the family
Last edited:
P
Polak
Guest
I think it’s fair to say. It’s like if there was a bank robbery and a few banknotes were found on the floor in a nearby street. It wouldn’t be correct to claim ‘this is evidence that the bank robbers went this way’. That would be jumping to conclusions, like you’re doing. It could be said ‘the banknotes on the floor suggest they may have gone this way’ or ‘these bank notes might be from the robbers’. The banknotes could also be somebody elses. There is no evidence to suggest it was one of the banknotes the robbers stoles, unless you do a check on the banknote and find it has DNA from one of the robbers. Now that would be much stronger evidence. But you are right, it seems we disagree on what evidence is.
I argue we can’t know that and shouldn’t just make the assumption that somebody was killed by police because of their skin color without knowing it, because it’s harmful to do so.
You say I deny the evidence. Again what evidence? There isn’t any.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There are too many good sincere people now being united by the desire to stop the systemic injustice against black people to allow this hopeful moment to be undermined by attempts to tie the movement to any small group of bad actors. I continue to stand with Black Lives Matter in calling for reform that is 100+ years overdue.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
Maybe in the US but in other nations especially the UK BLM is now associated with trying to eradicate aspects of the culture they don’t like. Whether this is on purpose or not this is the way it’s happening and now they have invoked the fury of far right groups who are threatening to use force to prevent this thus causing more division
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Interesting that you should cite the threat of a far-right backlash of violence as a reason not to capitulate to demands of another group that you say is also threatening violence. I think threats of violence from either side should never drive important policy decisions.
S
Servant31
Guest
I’m not against different perspectives at all. And I do think some is overblown. However, even in my own personal life:
A woman I worked with who was a former police officer: “ I learned in the police force that if your black or Mexican your guilty and if your white your innocent”
She didn’t strike me as overly political or hyperbolic. The statistics are also there which indicate a disparity in wealth, in justice, in wages, etc. With as large of a sample size I struggle to come up with a criticism of these statistics. I agree that there is some partisanship and opportunistic politics happening. However I don’t think every peaceful protester is that way. I think there are a lot of thoughtful clear thinking individuals who still think there is a disparity which could be addressed.
A woman I worked with who was a former police officer: “ I learned in the police force that if your black or Mexican your guilty and if your white your innocent”
She didn’t strike me as overly political or hyperbolic. The statistics are also there which indicate a disparity in wealth, in justice, in wages, etc. With as large of a sample size I struggle to come up with a criticism of these statistics. I agree that there is some partisanship and opportunistic politics happening. However I don’t think every peaceful protester is that way. I think there are a lot of thoughtful clear thinking individuals who still think there is a disparity which could be addressed.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
The threats from the far right is growing based on the violent reaction of these protesters who are tearing up important aspects of their country. My point was that they are antagonizing the population, a population who don’t really care about what they viewed as a US problem but who are now seeing what these protesters are doing to their own country as disgraceful and will more likely act on it. All they are doing is stoking the fires of hate, i don’t see any good in what this movement has done so far, i honestly can’t remember the last time there was so much hate.Paddy1989:
Interesting that you should cite the threat of a far-right backlash of violence as a reason not to capitulate to demands of another group that you say is also threatening violence. I think threats of violence from either side should never drive important policy decisions.
You even have statues and cultural symbols being protected by Police and Snipers now in the UK from who you might ask? From BLM thats who, thats what they have become, it’s obvious what happened with George Floyd was just a ploy to use by these groups and it’s becoming clearer by the day. Lets not forget Seattle which based on the actions of the Mayor has never made the US look weaker by giving in to anarchists committing a crime
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Interesting how the “far-right” silently morphed in “the population.” I don’t buy it. The far-right is the far-right. It is no “the population.” The only ones being antagonized by protests against police violence are the far-right.
Those fires have been burning for a long long time. BLM is shining a light on them so that good people will unite and oppose that hate.
When protecting statues to the dead is more important than protecting the living, we have a problem with policing.
You can call it that. Others call it listening to the people they were elected to represent.
S
StudentMI
Guest
When you give in to one criminal act, to be consistent you must give in to them all. The common good is not served by the actions in Seattle.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
Not true, far right and far left movements grow when people feel they are threatened. Just look at the far left movement BLM, was it not actions they deemed disgraceful that unified people to their cause, people who didn’t care beforehand. It’s the same with the Far right and what BLM are doing is bolstering the numbers and support for these groups by attacking their culture. You even have the British PM claiming BLM will likely end in violence.Paddy1989:
Interesting how the “far-right” silently morphed in “the population.” I don’t buy it. The far-right is the far-right. It is no “the population.” The only ones being antagonized by protests against police violence are the far-right.
Those fires have been burning for a long long time. BLM is shining a light on them so that good people will unite and oppose that hate.
When protecting statues to the dead is more important than protecting the living, we have a problem with policing.
You can call it that. Others call it listening to the people they were elected to represent.
Boris Johnson has warned violent protesters they will “face the full force of the law” after claiming Black Lives Matter demonstrations are likely to “end in deliberate and calculated violence”.
To claim BLM is a shining light tells me which side you are on. There was no hate in the UK, Ireland, Australia, even here in New Zealand before all this, i can tell you there is now. Shame on BLM and anyone who thinks this is a good thing. Perhaps if they took their faith more seriously they would be in Church’s not out trying to create anarchy and terror
Last edited:
P
Paddy1989
Guest
It’s obvious some here support the view that one may do evil so that good may come of itLeafByNiggle:
When you give in to one criminal act, to be consistent you must give in to them all. The common good is not served by the actions in Seattle.
S
StudentMI
Guest
In this age one is reminded of that old saying, “nothing is true, everything is permitted.” Sadly even among Catholics.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
So…it looks like some people think “Western civilization” itself it the target of the protests.
What is the hallmark of “Western civilization”? Change. In contrast to other civilizations opposed to change–ancient Egypt, China, Tokugawa Japan among others. In the West, society as a whole has been smart enough to realize that things aren’t perfect. Things can be improved. Thus the idea of “progress.”
“The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of xxx but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.” This could have been written about the BLM movement this morning. In fact, the “xxx” was “the Famine.” It was written during the Irish famine by Charles Trevelyan, one of the architects of English policy that ended in at least a million deaths and the exile of millions more Irish. Today, hopefully, almost all English people would find this abhorrent and repulsive.
One of the saving graces of Western civilization is that whatever evils the culture of the time approved of and condoned, there have always been people who stood up and opposed these evils. You could point to Sir Thomas More, Wilberforce, the Quakers as a whole, the Abolitionists, the Suffragettes, the MeToo movement, and countless more. At the time, all of them were accused of “destroying Western civilization” and being extreme radicals. I’m happy to report that they did not “destroy Western civilization.” They improved Western civilization. There is general agreement on this. And I suspect that in 100 years the Black Lives Matter movement will be added to the list, and those who, like Trevelyan, blamed all the problems of the black community on “the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people” will be seen as quaint reactionaries, as indeed they are.
On the other hand, to judge people of another time by the standards of our own is not fair. Of course Churchill was a racist. Everyone was at that time. Albert Schweitzer was a racist too. So were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and all the rest. And before Galileo and Copernicus, everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that blood letting was a cure for almost every disease. They were mistaken. Human beings are not perfect. But we can learn, and we can become better.
Your fun fact of the day: If you watch BBC America, you are familiar with the news anchor, Laura Trevelyan. Guess who she is descended from? Yes, that very same Charles Trevelyan who was content to let the Irish starve. I don’t think Laura would condone the attitudes of her ancestor. But without Charles, we wouldn’t have Laura.
What is the hallmark of “Western civilization”? Change. In contrast to other civilizations opposed to change–ancient Egypt, China, Tokugawa Japan among others. In the West, society as a whole has been smart enough to realize that things aren’t perfect. Things can be improved. Thus the idea of “progress.”
“The real evil with which we have to contend is not the physical evil of xxx but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people.” This could have been written about the BLM movement this morning. In fact, the “xxx” was “the Famine.” It was written during the Irish famine by Charles Trevelyan, one of the architects of English policy that ended in at least a million deaths and the exile of millions more Irish. Today, hopefully, almost all English people would find this abhorrent and repulsive.
One of the saving graces of Western civilization is that whatever evils the culture of the time approved of and condoned, there have always been people who stood up and opposed these evils. You could point to Sir Thomas More, Wilberforce, the Quakers as a whole, the Abolitionists, the Suffragettes, the MeToo movement, and countless more. At the time, all of them were accused of “destroying Western civilization” and being extreme radicals. I’m happy to report that they did not “destroy Western civilization.” They improved Western civilization. There is general agreement on this. And I suspect that in 100 years the Black Lives Matter movement will be added to the list, and those who, like Trevelyan, blamed all the problems of the black community on “the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the people” will be seen as quaint reactionaries, as indeed they are.
On the other hand, to judge people of another time by the standards of our own is not fair. Of course Churchill was a racist. Everyone was at that time. Albert Schweitzer was a racist too. So were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and all the rest. And before Galileo and Copernicus, everyone believed that the sun revolved around the earth and that blood letting was a cure for almost every disease. They were mistaken. Human beings are not perfect. But we can learn, and we can become better.
Your fun fact of the day: If you watch BBC America, you are familiar with the news anchor, Laura Trevelyan. Guess who she is descended from? Yes, that very same Charles Trevelyan who was content to let the Irish starve. I don’t think Laura would condone the attitudes of her ancestor. But without Charles, we wouldn’t have Laura.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Which actions do you refer to? That actions of those that took over the police building, or the the actions of the mayor to back off from the confrontation? I grant that the first action does not serve the common good, but the second one may very well do that.LeafByNiggle:
When you give in to one criminal act, to be consistent you must give in to them all. The common good is not served by the actions in Seattle.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t know as much about BLM in those countries as I do about BLM in the US, but it appears to me that the protests around the world are not against injustice in their own countries, but in solidarity with BLM in the US. The world is a small place now, and injustice in a far away place is a source of disgust even as injustice in one’s own backyard might be.
Not so. Acknowledging that violence is very often the result of injustice does not condone the violence. Nor does recommending changes as a result of that violence condone the violence.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Full disclosure time: I am the descendant of slave traders. And not just small time. One of the biggest. For many years the largest slaving operation in Liverpool. And if you go to the Museum of the London Docklands near Canary Wharf, you’ll see a room devoted to the slave trade. One wall is covered with a “wall of shame” that lists the largest slaving expeditions that set out from London. My ancestors are in the the #2 and #3 positions. One became mayor of Liverpool for his efforts. A third of the blacks in Cuba owe their presence there to my ancestors. In his “History of Slavery,” Thomas Hughes refers to them often, always attaching the adjective “notorious” in front of their names. Why? I wondered. Remember that the British Parliament passed a law regulating the slave ships so that there was a minimum amount of space they had to allocate to each slave? Why did they pass that law? Because of my ancestors. They were notorious for packing the slaves in, basically piling them in on top of each other, and if a few died, tough luck.
So am I proud of them? Do I defend their actions? Of course not. They were reprehensible–by today’s standards. By the standards of their time? They were typical. Have I personally benefited from their slave trading? Probably. After slavery was outlawed, they returned to ship building (they had been the largest providers of ships for the Royal Navy before they got into slavery). When the ship yards burnt down, they turned to building houses (“developers” we would call them today). Because of that, my grandfather was also a builder–in the US. But do I feel personally guilty? Not at all. Would my ancestors be appalled at my attitudes today? Absolutely–they would think I was the worst kind of radical, trying to destroy “Western civilization.” They would be wrong, of course.
So am I proud of them? Do I defend their actions? Of course not. They were reprehensible–by today’s standards. By the standards of their time? They were typical. Have I personally benefited from their slave trading? Probably. After slavery was outlawed, they returned to ship building (they had been the largest providers of ships for the Royal Navy before they got into slavery). When the ship yards burnt down, they turned to building houses (“developers” we would call them today). Because of that, my grandfather was also a builder–in the US. But do I feel personally guilty? Not at all. Would my ancestors be appalled at my attitudes today? Absolutely–they would think I was the worst kind of radical, trying to destroy “Western civilization.” They would be wrong, of course.
- Status