Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[The Bear]

It's not behind a pay wall, as I can view it fine. You just need to accept whatever popups appear. 

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

It's not behind a pay wall, as I can view it fine. You just need to accept whatever popups appear. 

I've just tried it again and it wants me to either sign in as an existing subscriber, or pay and sign up

[urban.spaceman]

While we can all agree that slavery was a horrific and evil thing it's a counterproductive to stay obsessed with one particular period of it by one particular set of people when a) slavery is still going on to this day, and b) every single race of people have been slaves at one point in history and it's still condoned by the holy books of billions of people.

 

More attention needs to be given to Africa TODAY not just the descendants of those who were stolen from there. 

[urban.spaceman]

*anticipates bollocking*

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

While we can all agree that slavery was a horrific and evil thing it's a counterproductive to stay obsessed with one particular period of it by one particular set of people when a) slavery is still going on to this day, and b) every single race of people have been slaves at one point in history and it's still condoned by the holy books of billions of people.

 

More attention needs to be given to Africa TODAY not just the descendants of those who were stolen from there. 

It's a fair point. However, I would say that it's totally possible to focus on both at the same time rather than just one or the other.

[Dahnsouff]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's a fair point. However, I would say that it's totally possible to focus on both at the same time rather than just one or the other.

Of course, but why spend only 50% effort on the one you that can affect real change now, and the other 50% one the other, which is in the past, historically accurate albeit unpalatable yet impossible to offer any chance of retribution for those involved.

 

This need for revisionism is very self indulgent and washes away the lessons of the past.

[Sly]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

While we can all agree that slavery was a horrific and evil thing it's a counterproductive to stay obsessed with one particular period of it by one particular set of people when a) slavery is still going on to this day, and b) every single race of people have been slaves at one point in history and it's still condoned by the holy books of billions of people.

 

More attention needs to be given to Africa TODAY not just the descendants of those who were stolen from there. 

We can’t change the past, however we can change the future. 
 

I’m not sure smashing shit up and causing  anarchy is really the way forwards though.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Of course, but why spend only 50% effort on the one you that can affect real change now, and the other 50% one the other, which is in the past, historically accurate albeit unpalatable yet impossible to offer any chance of retribution for those involved.

 

This need for revisionism is very self indulgent and washes away the lessons of the past.

Because attitudes in the past affect attitudes now, and by examining one it makes it easier and more successful at addressing the other, IMO.

[leicsmac]

And actually relevant to the discussion in the Other News thread:

 

I don't get the seeming fixation some folks have with viewing historical figures only from contemporary viewpoints and not modern ones, as if examining them through the lens of today is somehow "not cricket".

 

IMO being able to view actions taken in the past through the lens of the present and judge accordingly is not only reasonable but also shows that humanity is progressing as a species.

[Dahnsouff]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And actually relevant to the discussion in the Other News thread:

 

I don't get the seeming fixation some folks have with viewing historical figures only from contemporary viewpoints and not modern ones, as if examining them through the lens of today is somehow "not cricket".

 

IMO being able to view actions taken in the past through the lens of the present and judge accordingly is not only reasonable but also shows that humanity is progressing as a species.

I hold a (at least partially) contrary viewpoint, so lets discuss 

There is no issue viewing them, but surely to condemn them from modern viewpoints is often wrong.  Some elements that were clearly wrong then as well as now, then sure, but things that were not uncommon then, but we now find distasteful, is just revisionism surely?

To my simplistic mind, its an (obviously much more important) version of judging someone for driving at 40mph yesterday on todays 30mph limit.

[fuchsntf]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

While we can all agree that slavery was a horrific and evil thing it's a counterproductive to stay obsessed with one particular period of it by one particular set of people when a) slavery is still going on to this day, and b) every single race of people have been slaves at one point in history and it's still condoned by the holy books of billions of people.

 

More attention needs to be given to Africa TODAY not just the descendants of those who were stolen from there. 

The same slave routes what was there 1000 years ago,are still there Now !!!  The same countries,people  & regions...I

Western Europe routes,then New World colonial Govts just Added to them...

 

Yes the European Colonial Master created a then,for 'New world' the 'decipical sardine factory of the Slave trade!!

 

Not to forget ,we had "press-ganging " of locals,including Children Not just in the military,but in factories.The Colonial Govts,& Businessmen

didnt treat their own  people too nicely either...

Majority of 'Western Europe Master' borders & loopholes Now officially  closed,but

Criminal/Gangster groups...of black & white Skin Colour still ply their trade....I

 

Under the name of "servant".   Slavery in Asian ,Persian,middle-east,African nations is still an easy forgotten,( push under the table) plight of our times.

Also its so easy,for Western uni-students,or Media & " Black Right" to fight the cause, on a simple back white platform,which is Bad enough....but we should also recognise Convenient hypocrocy,and Not forget the Racism within Asia,Africa,Persia and the Middle-East,that is both tribal,and tones of skin colour...and that even without the whiteman places like Africa & West Indies had ( & still underlying) racial tensions...

 

This is Not a Post looking for or making of excuses,while detesting all issues on discrimination and Racism,its pointing out there is no easy track or door out of this

racist jungle....paths of Hypocrocy,und turning a convenient blind eye,to causes of 'mans-suffering', wont help to get it sorted..

 

Edited 8 June 2020 by fuchsntf

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

I hold a (at least partially) contrary viewpoint, so lets discuss 

There is no issue viewing them, but surely to condemn them from modern viewpoints is often wrong.  Some elements that were clearly wrong then as well as now, then sure, but things that were not uncommon then, but we now find distasteful, is just revisionism surely?

To my simplistic mind, its an (obviously much more important) version of judging someone for driving at 40mph yesterday on todays 30mph limit.

Before we go much further, I'm kind of curious to know with clarity exactly why such judgement is wrong, beyond general sentiment. Is it unfair to their legacy that they are being judged for acts deemed acceptable then but heinous now? That seems to do them a disservice by implying they were too ignorant to see how heinous the things they were doing were, IMO. Are there some other reasons?

 

As a addendum to that, I actually like historical roles being revised and changing based on what we know about the person and their deeds, because, again, it implies that our own values structures are changing too - and that progress has been, thankfully, mostly for the better of late.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Before we go much further, I'm kind of curious to know with clarity exactly why such judgement is wrong, beyond general sentiment. Is it unfair to their legacy that they are being judged for acts deemed acceptable then but heinous now? That seems to do them a disservice by implying they were too ignorant to see how heinous the things they were doing were, IMO. Are there some other reasons?

No, you pretty sum up my feelings on this. It has nothing to do with sentiment (I think). It has more to do with their actions being judged against the societal behaviours, the norms, of the time. This of course does not make it right then, and likely even less so now. The morals, the struggles, would have all been different, and you can see the extreme case of soldiers at war, in as much of they act according to their expectations and acceptable norms of their time/situation. (Bit of an extreme and clumsy example, and for that I apologise, but hopefully the point is understood)

 

Of course if were asked to view someone like Colton against todays norms, it is different thing, he was bigoted, he was heinous as you suggest, but I am not an apologist, not even slightly. I will however always like to look at things against the times and situations when occurred, do so with outrage is missing some of the prime reasons why they likely occurred.

 

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As a addendum to that, I actually like historical roles being revised and changing based on what we know about the person and their deeds, because, again, it implies that our own values structures are changing too - and that progress has been, thankfully, mostly for the better of late.

I wholeheartedly agree, and examining the past, the roles of people past is invaluable, but we cannot hope to judge them against a historic setting only against our own contemporary setting.  

(Like many twitter judgements, we should be careful not to become swept along with the tide of popular opinion, we always need context) 

 

I like discussion, and I have zero issue changing my mind if I feel it has been suitably swayed (All else is ignorance or stubbornness imo), please go ahead. 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

No, you pretty sum up my feelings on this. It has nothing to do with sentiment (I think). It has more to do with their actions being judged against the societal behaviours, the norms, of the time. This of course does not make it right then, and likely even less so now. The morals, the struggles, would have all been different, and you can see the extreme case of soldiers at war, in as much of they act according to their expectations and acceptable norms of their time/situation. (Bit of an extreme and clumsy example, and for that I apologise, but hopefully the point is understood)

 

Of course if were asked to view someone like Colton against todays norms, it is different thing, he was bigoted, he was heinous as you suggest, but I am not an apologist, not even slightly. I will however always like to look at things against the times and situations when occurred, do so with outrage is missing some of the prime reasons why they likely occurred.

 

I wholeheartedly agree, and examining the past, the roles of people past is invaluable, but we cannot hope to judge them against a historic setting only against our own contemporary setting.  

(Like many twitter judgements, we should be careful not to become swept along with the tide of popular opinion, we always need context) 

 

I like discussion, and I have zero issue changing my mind if I feel it has been suitably swayed (All else is ignorance or stubbornness imo), please go ahead. 

Of course viewing it with absolutism isn't the best idea, but I'm still lacking a concrete reason as to why this is a bad thing to do. I'm curious as to know exactly how it is hurtful or detrimental. so long as people still learn about the legacy of the person and they aren't forgotten - because that can be damaging for a variety of reasons.

 

Apologies if what I'm putting across isn't clear.

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Of course viewing it with absolutism isn't the best idea, but I'm still lacking a concrete reason as to why this is a bad thing to do. I'm curious as to know exactly how it is hurtful or detrimental. so long as people still learn about the legacy of the person and they aren't forgotten - because that can be damaging for a variety of reasons.

 

Apologies if what I'm putting across isn't clear.

Perhaps it is my decision on what you mean in your original post by "sentiment", as I feel no actual sentimentality towards historic figures (Colton being the relevant example here), and I suppose that inferring judgement or ill feeling on the dead is of no real impact to anyone. Personally just prefer to operate under an assumed sense of empathy, even in cases such as this and I just feel this is a something we as a society, distance ourselves from sometimes. (Thank you Twitter)

 

Yes, there is nothing wrong with lambasting such figures, but I prefer not to without a fuller understanding of their situation or in light of irrefutable evidence. 

So the answer you are looking for I suspect, is that it is a personal choice.

 

You have been very clear in your points, less sure about myself mind 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Perhaps it is my decision on what you mean in your original post by "sentiment", as I feel no actual sentimentality towards historic figures (Colton being the relevant example here), and I suppose that inferring judgement or ill feeling on the dead is of no real impact to anyone. Personally just prefer to operate under an assumed sense of empathy, even in cases such as this and I just feel this is a something we as a society, distance ourselves from sometimes. (Thank you Twitter)

 

Yes, there is nothing wrong with lambasting such figures, but I prefer not to without a fuller understanding of their situation or in light of irrefutable evidence. 

So the answer you are looking for I suspect, is that it is a personal choice.

 

You have been very clear in your points, less sure about myself mind 

You'll get no disagreement with me there - in fact that's been what I've been aiming for all along. Judge these figures by the good and the bad, warts and all, not just one or the other, and to clarify the point I made earlier I believe that many folks who insist (as in properly insist) on "judging historical figures by historical standards" use that as a smokescreen to keep them on a pedestal, because I don't see them extending the same depth of feeling to other historical figures.

[Carl the Llama]

It's ok to be from the North of England and not work it into every conversation you have.

 

Ability to quote old game show lines while you wave your arms around like a deaf interpreter does not make you interesting.

[Nalis]

If someone's conversational voice is significantly different from their 'singing' voice then they are effectively acting /putting on an accent rather than actually singing, eg, Dido.

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Nalis said:

If someone's conversational voice is significantly different from their 'singing' voice then they are effectively acting /putting on an accent rather than actually singing, eg, Dildo in bum

 

 

I can imagine how ones voice could change in that scenario

[Nalis]

2 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I can imagine how ones voice could change in that scenario

Ffs alright Mr Stead 

[The Horse's Mouth]

This lockdown has been a complete failure and was only justified based on mass hysteria, the long term effects of shutting the country down will kill more people than this virus 

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

This lockdown has been a complete failure and was only justified based on mass hysteria, the long term effects of shutting the country down will kill more people than this virus 

Do you mean just this country or pretty much the entire world?

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

This lockdown has been a complete failure and was only justified based on mass hysteria, the long term effects of shutting the country down will kill more people than this virus 

So the lockdown hasn't resulted in a reduction of infections and deaths here and in other countries, then? What do you think would have happened without it? Have you been watching the news over the last 3 months?

Ignorance is not a virtue, I'm afraid.

It's not been great in terms of some people not adhering to the guidance and gathering in public places or, more recently, mass protests around BLM. The majority of people in all countries have been respectful of the demands placed on them but there will always be those who will rebel/ignore/do what the **** they like regardless of others.

It is not a complete failure.

[CosbehFox]

Don’t think there was anything mass hysteria reading and watching reports from Italy whilst we decided what to do. They were pretty chilling. 
 

Once Europe shutdown, we didn’t have much choice in the matter. We could have tried to run an economy where we physically couldn’t actually get items for us to function - certainly a point in my industry 

Edited 11 June 2020 by Cardiff_Fox

[LiberalFox]

Sweden was about the only country without a formal lockdown and they have seen a higher rate of infection and therefore dead compared to countries around them. Granted it's perfectly legitimate to ask questions over the lockdown but even without a lockdown the economy would be badly affected.