America

[Stom]

What’s Boris proposed?

Nothing concrete, it’s just we’re moving closer to the American system, which can bring the Uk closer to, well, shit

Do you mean healthcare?

Not specifically. It was in response to Eugene, with the fact you couldn't have that clause in the UK.

And, well, pretty much everything about America is worse for the average joe who doesn't work in tech and want to live in California...

[Digby]

I speak to IT workers in the US most days, they're not exactly living in a panacea

[Banquo]

Nothing concrete, it’s just we’re moving closer to the American system, which can bring the Uk closer to, well, shit

Do you mean healthcare?

Not specifically. It was in response to Eugene, with the fact you couldn't have that clause in the UK.

And, well, pretty much everything about America is worse for the average joe who doesn't work in tech and want to live in California...

That’s a protection in the Uk as I read it.

[Banquo]

I speak to IT workers in the US most days, they're not exactly living in a panacea

Pedant alert- can one live in a panacea?

[Digby]

I speak to IT workers in the US most days, they're not exactly living in a panacea

Pedant alert- can one live in a panacea?

It seems sufficiently subject to me

[Banquo]

I speak to IT workers in the US most days, they're not exactly living in a panacea

Pedant alert- can one live in a panacea?

It seems sufficiently subject to me

now you are just trying to annoy

[Eugene Wrayburn]

While I do have a problem with the events happening, if they're going to happen I have no problem with that disclaimer. They need to cover their backs.

Such a disclaimer would have no effect in England. You cannot exclude liability for personal injury, the logic being that if you think you need to cover your back then you should do something about the fucking obvious risk of personal injury that has been created by what you are doing.

It's pretty impossible to hold an event with people and remove any risk of catching covid, though...

But, yeah, it just shows how much farther Boris wants to take us down the road to insanity.

Generally you don't have to remove ALL risk. But if you are hosting an event it cannot be inherently dangerous and you have to take reasonable care.

Incidentally you are probably all thinking "but I've signed a load of clauses like that". You may well have. There's no rule against including it in some sort of waiver. It just doesn't have any effect whatsoever. However cunningly it probably deters people from suing or even asking a lawyer if what happened to them is negligent.

[morepork]

On the anniversary of Juneteenth, in a city that was the scene of the massacre of over 300African Americans at the hands of white supremacy, the President chooses to hold a klan rally in the midst of a viral pandemic at a time when centuries of racial injustice is front and center in priority public discourse . If that is not a tipping of the hat to Jim Crow laws, then what is?

[Donny osmond]

And on Juneteenth the mob mentality leads to the toppling and defacing of the statue of well known racist... Ulysses S Grant.

That's Ulysses S Grant, the guy who won the civil war fighting against the slavers. The guy who when gifted the only slave he ever owned, freed the man and worked in the fields alongside him.

Yeah, mob mentality is the only/best answer.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Mikey Brown]

And on Juneteenth the mob mentality leads to the toppling and defacing of the statue of well known racist... Ulysses S Grant.

That's Ulysses S Grant, the guy who won the civil war fighting against the slavers. The guy who when gifted the only slave he ever owned, freed the man and worked in the fields alongside him.

Yeah, mob mentality is the only/best answer.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I’ve still not quite worked out your angle on all this.

This “mob mentality” - and I’m not sure if this just means the protests as a whole or all the violence and nonsense that comes alongside it - is seemingly driving a movement now that people feel may finally actually have some impact after generations and generations of shitty treatment.

Is your issue here that the defacing of an innocent statue has undermined the protests? Or that the best course of action is still just to be quiet, stay in line and then (assuming you’re actually allowed to) go and vote?

I’m not pleased to hear about it or anything, and it’s a problem if the focus of the ‘mob’ as a whole is misplaced, but I’m really struggling to care that much about statues given how often we’re still seeing actual living humans getting murdered like dogs in the street.

[Puja]

And on Juneteenth the mob mentality leads to the toppling and defacing of the statue of well known racist... Ulysses S Grant.

That's Ulysses S Grant, the guy who won the civil war fighting against the slavers. The guy who when gifted the only slave he ever owned, freed the man and worked in the fields alongside him.

Yeah, mob mentality is the only/best answer.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I’ve still not quite worked out your angle on all this.

This “mob mentality” - and I’m not sure if this just means the protests as a whole or all the violence and nonsense that comes alongside it - is seemingly driving a movement now that people feel may finally actually have some impact after generations and generations of shitty treatment.

Is your issue here that the defacing of an innocent statue has undermined the protests? Or that the best course of action is still just to be quiet, stay in line and then (assuming you’re actually allowed to) go and vote?

I’m not pleased to hear about it or anything, and it’s a problem if the focus of the ‘mob’ as a whole is misplaced, but I’m really struggling to care that much about statues given how often we’re still seeing actual living humans getting murdered like dogs in the street.

And surely the mob not knowing Grant's history as a fervent anti-slaver (in a time when some people would have you believe that "everyone had slaves, it was normal so you can't judge people") is an argument in favour of history not being taught well and concentrating on things that white people don't find uncomfortable?

Puja

[Donny osmond]

As happy as I am to see any progress on civil rights, the apparent success of a movement thru the use of mobs is very clearly a dog whistle to anyone who fancies using a mob to try to achieve something. And that something that they want to achieve is probably not going through be as worthy as civil rights.

So it's great that civil rights may see some progress, but the process by which that progress may come about is a very very dangerous one if it involves encouraging mobs to force the hand of authorities via the either use or threat of violence.

My violence good, yours bad, is a pretty significant step away from what we have considered to be democracy.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

As happy as I am to see any progress on civil rights, the apparent success of a movement thru the use of mobs is very clearly a dog whistle to anyone who fancies using a mob to try to achieve something. And that something that they want to achieve is probably not going through be as worthy as civil rights.

So it's great that civil rights may see some progress, but the process by which that progress may come about is a very very dangerous one if it involves encouraging mobs to force the hand of authorities via the either use or threat of violence.

My violence good, yours bad, is a pretty significant step away from what we have considered to be democracy.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Mobs bad, yes. Institutionalised racism also bad. Institutionalised racism not going anywhere using peaceful, democratic, safe measures - in fact, it's actually been increasing of late.

Not all mobs are the same. Each mob is judged on its own merits. And condemning this international civil disobedience and protests because of a vague fear of "what if somebody else gathers together an international coalition of protests that cover all 50 states of the US and most of its major international allies and wants to do something evil with it," sounds like you're saying that you were happy with the status quo, where black people were getting regularly murdered for the colour of their skin, because it was more outwardly lawful.

Besides, there have been mobs achieving civil rights before; it's basically the only regular way that minorities tend to get them. Stonewall and LA both had tangiable results and there are countless others.

tl;dr - let's worry about the hypothetical future mobs when the hypothetical future gets here and instead look at the situation where it is.

Puja

[morepork]

As happy as I am to see any progress on civil rights, the apparent success of a movement thru the use of mobs is very clearly a dog whistle to anyone who fancies using a mob to try to achieve something. And that something that they want to achieve is probably not going through be as worthy as civil rights.

So it's great that civil rights may see some progress, but the process by which that progress may come about is a very very dangerous one if it involves encouraging mobs to force the hand of authorities via the either use or threat of violence.

My violence good, yours bad, is a pretty significant step away from what we have considered to be democracy.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

So is unofficial state sanction apartheid.

FFS

[Donny osmond]

As happy as I am to see any progress on civil rights, the apparent success of a movement thru the use of mobs is very clearly a dog whistle to anyone who fancies using a mob to try to achieve something. And that something that they want to achieve is probably not going through be as worthy as civil rights.

So it's great that civil rights may see some progress, but the process by which that progress may come about is a very very dangerous one if it involves encouraging mobs to force the hand of authorities via the either use or threat of violence.

My violence good, yours bad, is a pretty significant step away from what we have considered to be democracy.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

So is unofficial state sanction apartheid.

FFS

Yes, I know, I have agreed with this statement numerous times on this thread.

FFS indeed

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

As happy as I am to see any progress on civil rights, the apparent success of a movement thru the use of mobs is very clearly a dog whistle to anyone who fancies using a mob to try to achieve something. And that something that they want to achieve is probably not going through be as worthy as civil rights.

So it's great that civil rights may see some progress, but the process by which that progress may come about is a very very dangerous one if it involves encouraging mobs to force the hand of authorities via the either use or threat of violence.

My violence good, yours bad, is a pretty significant step away from what we have considered to be democracy.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Mobs bad, yes. Institutionalised racism also bad. Institutionalised racism not going anywhere using peaceful, democratic, safe measures - in fact, it's actually been increasing of late.

I just don't see it as an either/or situation.

And yes I know peaceful means have been getting nowhere, if you disregard literally all the progress that's been made in the last 50 years. Violence may give the appearance of progress, but if it's meaninglessly directed at figures who were vehemently anti slavery it could very easily end up hurting the very cause it's supposed to help.

Not all mobs are the same. Each mob is judged on its own merits. And condemning this international civil disobedience and protests because of a vague fear of "what if somebody else gathers together an international coalition of protests that cover all 50 states of the US and most of its major international allies and wants to do something evil with it," sounds like you're saying that you were happy with the status quo, where black people were getting regularly murdered for the colour of their skin, because it was more outwardly lawful.


Puja

Those are some very specific parameters to put on a 'vague fear', which is in itself a bullshit thing to do, but when you then go on to put words in my mouth that I have in no way alluded to, and flat out state that I'm happy with black people getting murdered, something of which you have not a shred of evidence, you can frankly fuck all the way off. If this is all your argument is, you don't have an argument.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

As happy as I am to see any progress on civil rights, the apparent success of a movement thru the use of mobs is very clearly a dog whistle to anyone who fancies using a mob to try to achieve something. And that something that they want to achieve is probably not going through be as worthy as civil rights.

So it's great that civil rights may see some progress, but the process by which that progress may come about is a very very dangerous one if it involves encouraging mobs to force the hand of authorities via the either use or threat of violence.

My violence good, yours bad, is a pretty significant step away from what we have considered to be democracy.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Mobs bad, yes. Institutionalised racism also bad. Institutionalised racism not going anywhere using peaceful, democratic, safe measures - in fact, it's actually been increasing of late.

I just don't see it as an either/or situation.

And yes I know peaceful means have been getting nowhere, if you disregard literally all the progress that's been made in the last 50 years. Violence may give the appearance of progress, but if it's meaninglessly directed at figures who were vehemently anti slavery it could very easily end up hurting the very cause it's supposed to help.

Not all mobs are the same. Each mob is judged on its own merits. And condemning this international civil disobedience and protests because of a vague fear of "what if somebody else gathers together an international coalition of protests that cover all 50 states of the US and most of its major international allies and wants to do something evil with it," sounds like you're saying that you were happy with the status quo, where black people were getting regularly murdered for the colour of their skin, because it was more outwardly lawful.


Puja

Those are some very specific parameters to put on a 'vague fear', which is in itself a bullshit thing to do, but when you then go on to put words in my mouth that I have in no way alluded to, and flat out state that I'm happy with black people getting murdered, something of which you have not a shred of evidence, you can frankly fuck all the way off. If this is all your argument is, you don't have an argument.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

In fact, what I said was that "it sounds like you're saying". I'm assuming you're not actually saying that, cause you're not an arsehole, but consistently coming out against the civil disobedience because of fears about property damage and the nebulous future erosion of democracy does make it sound like that.

Puja

[morepork]

Justice 4 Statues.

[Donny osmond]

Mobs bad, yes. Institutionalised racism also bad. Institutionalised racism not going anywhere using peaceful, democratic, safe measures - in fact, it's actually been increasing of late.

I just don't see it as an either/or situation.

And yes I know peaceful means have been getting nowhere, if you disregard literally all the progress that's been made in the last 50 years. Violence may give the appearance of progress, but if it's meaninglessly directed at figures who were vehemently anti slavery it could very easily end up hurting the very cause it's supposed to help.

Not all mobs are the same. Each mob is judged on its own merits. And condemning this international civil disobedience and protests because of a vague fear of "what if somebody else gathers together an international coalition of protests that cover all 50 states of the US and most of its major international allies and wants to do something evil with it," sounds like you're saying that you were happy with the status quo, where black people were getting regularly murdered for the colour of their skin, because it was more outwardly lawful.


Puja

Those are some very specific parameters to put on a 'vague fear', which is in itself a bullshit thing to do, but when you then go on to put words in my mouth that I have in no way alluded to, and flat out state that I'm happy with black people getting murdered, something of which you have not a shred of evidence, you can frankly fuck all the way off. If this is all your argument is, you don't have an argument.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

In fact, what I said was that "it sounds like you're saying". I'm assuming you're not actually saying that, cause you're not an arsehole, but consistently coming out against the civil disobedience because of fears about property damage and the nebulous future erosion of democracy does make it sound like that.

Puja

Uh huh, "I'm not saying that ... does make it sound like that". At least have the balls to own it.

Mike Brown wants to know what my angle is? Maybe us not getting to the point where me saying the bringing down of a monument to a determinedly, famously, publicly anti discrimination figure is perhaps not the best way to show display anti discrimination values, somehow "sounds like" me wishing that black people get murdered.

Groupthink is just another term for mob mentality, and the key take home here is if you aren't on board with the groupthink you can fairly and reasonably be thought to "sound like" you're a racist; despite not only never coming out with any racist sentiment but even in the face of you repeatedly saying you can understand and empathize with the anger of the rioters.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

I just don't see it as an either/or situation.

And yes I know peaceful means have been getting nowhere, if you disregard literally all the progress that's been made in the last 50 years. Violence may give the appearance of progress, but if it's meaninglessly directed at figures who were vehemently anti slavery it could very easily end up hurting the very cause it's supposed to help.



Those are some very specific parameters to put on a 'vague fear', which is in itself a bullshit thing to do, but when you then go on to put words in my mouth that I have in no way alluded to, and flat out state that I'm happy with black people getting murdered, something of which you have not a shred of evidence, you can frankly fuck all the way off. If this is all your argument is, you don't have an argument.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

In fact, what I said was that "it sounds like you're saying". I'm assuming you're not actually saying that, cause you're not an arsehole, but consistently coming out against the civil disobedience because of fears about property damage and the nebulous future erosion of democracy does make it sound like that.

Puja

Uh huh, "I'm not saying that ... does make it sound like that". At least have the balls to own it.

Mike Brown wants to know what my angle is? Maybe us not getting to the point where me saying the bringing down of a monument to a determinedly, famously, publicly anti discrimination figure is perhaps not the best way to show display anti discrimination values, somehow "sounds like" me wishing that black people get murdered.

Groupthink is just another term for mob mentality, and the key take home here is if you aren't on board with the groupthink you can fairly and reasonably be thought to "sound like" you're a racist; despite not only never coming out with any racist sentiment but even in the face of you repeatedly saying you can understand and empathize with the anger of the rioters.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

I am quite happy to own it - you may not actually mean that you're happy with the status quo, but tone policing the protests and lamenting that we're eroding democracy comes off like that, because you're attacking something which is actually seeing institutionalised racism become a priority and putting pressure on decision makers because you don't like the way it's done.

Yes, I agree with you that attacking Grant's statue was a stupid ill-educated mistake, but in fairness to the protestors, who knew there even was a statue of someone who was anti-slavery?!

Also, racism isn't a binary institution. There's not an on-off switch between being not-racist and a member of the Klan. It's not a case of being either in the good group or the bad group and that I am denoting you as one of the bad guys, a capital R racist, and therefore not invited to any of the good guys' social events.


Puja

Edited because I rethought some of my phrasing as dickish.

[Mikey Brown]

Well, err...

Here is the store owner where Andrés Guardado worked and was killed, describing how the police destroyed his cameras after shooting him.

Once again it sounds too ridiculous and brazen of the police to really take at face value, but then so would the George Floyd incident if it hadn’t been caught on camera.





I wish I knew how to post the individual tweets rather than two, but there you go.

[Puja]

Well, err...

Here is the store owner where Andrés Guardado worked and was killed, describing how the police destroyed his cameras after shooting him.

Once again it sounds too ridiculous and brazen of the police to really take at face value, but then so would the George Floyd incident if it hadn’t been caught on camera.


I wish I knew how to post the individual tweets rather than two, but there you go.

Well that's just fucking terrible. You're absolutely right in that it sounds like cartoon-level villainy to me who's never experienced this shit. These protests and the cases that are being brought to light, both current and historical, are rapidly recalibrating my, "They surely wouldn't do that, right?" gauge.

Puja

[Donny osmond]

Why do you think attacking Grants statue was a stupid ill educated mistake?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

Why do you think attacking Grants statue was a stupid ill educated mistake?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Because they clearly did not know his history and instead took the pretty reasonable assumption that a statue put up of an 18th Century man was of a racist (although further reading on the matter suggests that while he was great as an opponent of slavery and the KKK, Native Americans might have an issue with him having a statue, although I doubt that was why his statue was defaced).

Where I take issue is using it to mock the movement and the civil disobedience as a whole. There's enough, "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things," from the Trump campaign without other people taking shots.

Puja

[Donny osmond]

Why do you think attacking Grants statue was a stupid ill educated mistake?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Because they clearly did not know his history and instead took the pretty reasonable assumption that a statue put up of an 18th Century man was of a racist (although further reading on the matter suggests that while he was great as an opponent of slavery and the KKK, Native Americans might have an issue with him having a statue, although I doubt that was why his statue was defaced).

Where I take issue is using it to mock the movement and the civil disobedience as a whole. There's enough, "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things," from the Trump campaign without other people taking shots.

Puja

Ok, so leaving aside the fact that they have given no end of ammunition to the "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things" crowd, which may be considered a bit daft, in a nutshell making my point about the short comings of mob mentality...

You've called the BLM protestors stupid and ill educated and that's not racist

You've agreed with me that it was a stupid thing to do and that's not racist

BUT me saying it was a stupid thing to do, that's the racism here?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk