Also in the news

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I'll bow out of any further debate of this issue, though - partly out of ignorance and partly out of disinclination.

Sensible, I will take the shut my gob approach. 

[Innovindil]

Holy shit reading that Rowling nonsense on twitter is mental. Wtf is even happening. How have we gone from welcoming the gays to this absolute clown fiesta. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

Cecil Rhodes statue will be the next one to go, can see them going after many more too.

 

Tommy Robinson organising a march to defend the statues in London on Saturday, that'll get tasty when the different groups run into each other. Hopefully they all batter each other to death

 

The highlight has to be Antifa calling out Millwall on Twitter though, to which Millwall accepted the challenge

Edited 9 June 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[davieG]

Statues and street names in London with links to slavery "should be taken down", the city's mayor has said.

Sadiq Khan said he had set up a commission to review the capital's landmarks to ensure they reflect its diversity.

It comes after anti-racism protesters tore down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol on Sunday.

Mr Khan said London had "an uncomfortable truth" with historical links to slavery.

The Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm will review the city's landmarks - including murals, street art, street names, statues and other memorials - and consider which legacies should be celebrated before making recommendations.

 

 

As I said in a previous post if this is the way forward then there's no justification for keeping heredity peers or having them in the House of Lords, might even need to go further and rename it. How many of them can say their ancestors didn't get rich off the back of the slave trade, not many I suspect.

[urban.spaceman]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Statues and street names in London with links to slavery "should be taken down", the city's mayor has said.

Sadiq Khan said he had set up a commission to review the capital's landmarks to ensure they reflect its diversity.

It comes after anti-racism protesters tore down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol on Sunday.

Mr Khan said London had "an uncomfortable truth" with historical links to slavery.

The Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm will review the city's landmarks - including murals, street art, street names, statues and other memorials - and consider which legacies should be celebrated before making recommendations.

 

 

As I said in a previous post if this is the way forward then there's no justification for keeping heredity peers or having them in the House of Lords, might even need to go further and rename it. How many of them can say their ancestors didn't get rich off the back of the slave trade, not many I suspect.

There was a guy in the 20th century who passed laws forcing people to declare the purity of their ancestry. Can't remember his name though. Little moustache.

[leicsmac]

There are other ways of maintaining legacies and recording history than keeping statues. It's disingenuous to suggest that removing statues will be some kind of slippery slope to an Orwellian erasure of history.

 

I'm still looking for a good reason from someone to maintain statues of people with bad legacies beyond tacit approval of what that person did.

[Pliskin]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Statues and street names in London with links to slavery "should be taken down", the city's mayor has said.

Sadiq Khan said he had set up a commission to review the capital's landmarks to ensure they reflect its diversity.

It comes after anti-racism protesters tore down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol on Sunday.

Mr Khan said London had "an uncomfortable truth" with historical links to slavery.

The Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm will review the city's landmarks - including murals, street art, street names, statues and other memorials - and consider which legacies should be celebrated before making recommendations.

 

 

As I said in a previous post if this is the way forward then there's no justification for keeping heredity peers or having them in the House of Lords, might even need to go further and rename it. How many of them can say their ancestors didn't get rich off the back of the slave trade, not many I suspect.

I’ve been thinking about this today. The more you look at it statues of individuals responsible for the British Empire is not in keeping with modern day society. Removal of these statues would be an acceptance and accountability for the fact our country contribution to world wide ethnic assaults. Slavery should never be celebrated, we have this very British way of being overly jovial about such figures, when they’re rubbing shoulders with the likes of Hitler. It’s time we changed our tune, subtle memorials acting as a reminder of the tyranny the British Empire were responsible for is important, but statues of the individuals responsible is unacceptable. As someone mentioned yesterday, Berlin isn’t littered with statues of the Nazi party, so why should we litter our streets with figures equally as cruel.

 

When you strip Britain to its roots, there’s a lot to be ashamed about. But then again, the same could be said for all of Europe. Power was never attained by arranging tea parties. 

Edited 9 June 2020 by Pliskin

[leicsmac]

Regarding the Rowling/trans folks debate...well, the same arguments pop up on here every so often and I think lines in the sand are pretty well drawn...so the only thing I'll say is that IMO attitudes among the public towards trans people is one of the chief reasons why the suicide rate of those people is as high as it is.

[foxile5]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Regarding the Rowling/trans folks debate...well, the same arguments pop up on here every so often and I think lines in the sand are pretty well drawn...so the only thing I'll say is that IMO attitudes among the public towards trans people is one of the chief reasons why the suicide rate of those people is as high as it is.

Agreed. 

 

But its insane that the trans community are attacking J K Rowling for saying that women menstruate. We can be inclusive of Trans and not have to be ****ing insane about it. Just because trans people are included as part of society doesn't mean we can't identify basic fact without a huge uproar of inclusivity and gender definition. There is such a thing as going too deep into gender politics. 

 

Daniel Radcliffe is being a prize **** too. He's just waded in to improve his stock. Beady eyed little ****. He can definitely piss off. 

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Agreed. 

 

But its insane that the trans community are attacking J K Rowling for saying that women menstruate. We can be inclusive of Trans and not have to be ****ing insane about it. Just because trans people are included as part of society doesn't mean we can't identify basic fact without a huge uproar of inclusivity and gender definition. There is such a thing as going too deep into gender politics. 

 

Daniel Radcliffe is being a prize **** too. He's just waded in to improve his stock. Beady eyed little ****. He can definitely piss off. 

If society at large were inclusive of trans people then I'd agree totally with this. Unfortunately, however, they are clearly not, and this isn't the first tweet that Rowling has issued on the matter which suggests she might not be all that inclusive of them either - which is why the response has been so vociferous from some areas.

[foxile5]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If society at large were inclusive of trans people then I'd agree totally with this. Unfortunately, however, they are clearly not, and this isn't the first tweet that Rowling has issued on the matter which suggests she might not be all that inclusive of them either - which is why the response has been so vociferous from some areas.

You're inferring a lot from her tweets. 

 

I have no agenda against the trans community and I think we should be able to say that women menstruate. They're not hard beliefs to hold in tandem. 

 

Sometimes digging at the minutae does more harm than good. All that bollocks about pronouns a couple of years ago harmed the movement because it was petty and stupid. This kind of argument harms it because its just a daft argument to have. 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

You're inferring a lot from her tweets. 

 

I have no agenda against the trans community and I think we should be able to say that women menstruate. They're not hard beliefs to hold in tandem. 

 

Sometimes digging at the minutae does more harm than good. All that bollocks about pronouns a couple of years ago harmed the movement because it was petty and stupid. This kind of argument harms it because its just a daft argument to have. 

Perhaps some of her other Tweets should be examined, then - as I said, this isn't the first time for such things.

 

And yeah, it is mostly inference - with someone as skilled with words as Rowling is that's often all you have because such a person is smart enough to not be plain about possibly problematic views that they have and so allow themselves a veneer of deniability. That might be overly cynical, but I guess I'm rather jaded from hearing so much unjustified vitriol hurled at the trans community that cynicism is a classical response - it seems to be the one "fashionable" prejudice left in the UK. I think I'll leave it at that.

Edited 9 June 2020 by leicsmac

[Pliskin]

22 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

You're inferring a lot from her tweets. 

 

I have no agenda against the trans community and I think we should be able to say that women menstruate. They're not hard beliefs to hold in tandem. 

 

Sometimes digging at the minutae does more harm than good. All that bollocks about pronouns a couple of years ago harmed the movement because it was petty and stupid. This kind of argument harms it because its just a daft argument to have. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

 

 

It reminds me of this. 

[Ross-Kemp]

Hoping for a good quality HD stream of Milwall vs Antifa on Saturday. 
 

PM’s welcome with links 

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

There are other ways of maintaining legacies and recording history than keeping statues.  It's disingenuous to suggest that removing statues will be some kind of slippery slope to an Orwellian erasure of history. 

 

I'm still looking for a good reason from someone to maintain statues of people with bad legacies beyond tacit approval of what that person did.

Not that I'm particularly bothered but could you not say its disingenuous to think taking statues down will combat racism? 

Edited 9 June 2020 by Benguin

[leicsmac]

Just now, Benguin said:

Not that I'm particularly bothered but could you not say its disingenuous to think taking statues down will combat racism? 

If anyone was proposing that was the entire solution, then I'd agree. But they're not - and if they are they're wrong. There are a variety of methods needed to help combat racism - this is merely one.

 

What it might do is get people thinking that perhaps that this person wasn't such a great bloke as there's no longer a statue of him and get them looking more closely at exactly why, which could well have an impact on education towards racism. And education is the way that this progresses successfully, IMO.

 

And I'm still looking for an inverse of this - a concrete reason why it's a good idea to keep those statues up, if anyone is interested.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Anyone who lived over a hundred or so years ago will have views that are completely backwards and outdated by todays standards.

 

 

[the fox]

What's the deal with this JK Rowling thing? Even after reading some of the tweets and posts in here, I couldn't tell what's the bases of the argument exactly.

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Anyone who lived over a hundred or so years ago will have views that are completely backwards and outdated by todays standards.

 

Vast majority, yes.

 

So, again - why is it so important that those people are remembered only in a contemporary lens rather than a modern one, beyond some semblance of "well, it's just not cricket"? I'm not hearing any concrete reasons.

 

I said this in the unpopular opinions thread but I'll repeat it here: 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.

[urban.spaceman]

[Dahnsouff]

9 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Anyone who lived over a hundred or so years ago will have views that are completely backwards and outdated by todays standards.

Of course and the same shall be said of our views in another hundred years. (Well I hope and expect so)

 

Now because I am ar$e lazy too quote two separate posts....

 

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What it might do is get people thinking that perhaps that this person wasn't such a great bloke as there's no longer  as they looked into their history after noticing a statue of them

You already have your inversion @leicsmac - just saying...(could not resist  )

Edited 9 June 2020 by Dahnsouff

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

 

You already have your inversion @leicsmac - just saying...(could not resist  )

Fair point.

 

However, how many people actually do what was said there, and furthermore how many people would have their viewpoint biased by seeing the statue in the first place?

 

There are better ways to get people learning about historical figures without having to deify them in the form of a statue. I know however that you thought that not having a statue automatically reduces the amount of interest society might have in a historical figure and that could be implied to be erasing history (from the Unpop Ops thread, correct me if I'm wrong), so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree there because I think that is not true.

[leicsmac]

Anyway:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52978803

 

Biden understanding that the black vote will be key to his success and acting accordingly.

[UniFox21]

I have no words 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

I have no words 

I am Jack's total lack of surprise.

 

Did anyone really expect anything different?