George Floyd/Black Lives Matter Protests

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

If you would be so kind as to provide some examples, then I would be able to carefully consider if they were indeed 'legitimate', or not.

This is fun.

 

As I explained in my previous post, your answers to my questions are necessary for the conversation to continue.

I'm not going to ask again, so just let me know whether you're going to answer or not. I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine.

[Marshmallo]

 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Respectively

OK

No

No

What about them?

No, but I will listen to their point of view and give it a hell of a lot more weight than my own largely irrelevant opinion

 

And don't ever call me a coward again you RAT

Firstly, you are a coward. You just run about the forum red-dotting rather than actually engaging with people. If you don't like being told that you're a coward, then stop being one.

As for your answers; my goodness.

Let's say that a black person voices a completely irrational view on racism. For example that the teaching of the historical fact of black-driven slavery out of Africa should not be allowed. You would not disagree with that? That's what you've just said, and it's a patently ridiculous position to take.

Secondly, if you accept (as you do) that black people do not have one view on issues, then how can you say a white person can not legitimately disagree with a black person on racism? You've just accepted that some black people could be wrong. How can it be wrong to disagree with someone who is wrong?

Point 3 echos point 2.

As for point 4; if you don't trust your own reasoning skills to form an opinion simply because of the colour of your skin, then I'd suggest you need to take a step back and consider why you hold such anti-intellectual views.

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Firstly, you are a coward. You just run about the forum red-dotting rather than actually engaging with people. If you don't like being told that you're a coward, then stop being one.

As for your answers; my goodness.

Let's say that a black person voices a completely irrational view on racism. For example that the teaching of the historical fact of black-driven slavery out of Africa should not be allowed. You would not disagree with that? That's what you've just said, and it's a patently ridiculous position to take.

Secondly, if you accept (as you do) that black people do not have one view on issues, then how can you say a white person can not legitimately disagree with a black person on racism? You've just accepted that some black people could be wrong. How can it be wrong to disagree with someone who is wrong?

Point 3 echos point 2.

As for point 4; if you don't trust your own reasoning skills to form an opinion simply because of the colour of your skin, then I'd suggest you need to take a step back and consider why you hold such anti-intellectual views.

You said "can a white person never disagree with a black person on race" or some other strawman and I said "no". Why are you replying as if I said "yes"?

To your final point, if someone has more lived experience on a topic than I do then I believe their opinion holds more weight than my own. I can form an opinion but it will not carry as much value. I can have an opinion on how to land a rover on Mars but I would probably defer to some cunt that works for NASA as having a more valid opinion than I do.

PS I have reported you for calling me a coward

[throbber]

I’m still in the Monty Python stoning scene moment here, imagining JTS98 as Michael Palin getting more and more angry at being called Big Nose with the big nose taunt in this instant being exchanged with Marshmallows red dots and Ali’s deflection tactics. I, of course, am the poor innocent woman who gets punched in the puss when Palin (or JTS98) eventually snaps. 
 

 

 

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

Doesn’t know the meaning of no type post. 

We've established that you don't have the capacity to defend the views you purport to hold.

Ok.

[Ira Gaines]

Let's be clear. There's a difference between "can a white person disagree with a black person on racism?" and "can a white person know how racist terms affect black people?" which is ultimately what this recent BBC cock up comes down to.

[NotThePars]

Tbh, ignoring JTS's obvious straw men I really think most people are dismissing his (yours?) contributions because of this opening salvo

On 09/08/2020 at 08:10, JTS98 said:

I'm not on board with the idea that the N-word can be used in rap music to make money, but not in a factual report about a racist attack.

Which is something I'd expect to read below the line of a Daily Mail article about Kendrick Lamar. It's no surprise that people then just assume someone that genuinely thinks this is uniquely unqualified (as a historian or anything else) to speak on matters of race.

 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

Tbh, ignoring JTS's obvious straw men I really think most people are dismissing his (yours?) contributions because of this opening salvo

Which is something I'd expect to read below the line of a Daily Mail article about Kendrick Lamar. It's no surprise that people then just assume someone that genuinely thinks this is uniquely unqualified (as a historian or anything else) to speak on matters of race.

 

You clearly don't know what a straw man is. It's a fashionable term, but you're just showing that you don't understand how an argument develops.

It is perfectly valid in the context of a discussion where a black BBC employee has voiced an opinion and people are discussing that in a debate to ask whether white people can disagree with people on race issues. If you don't see that, then you don't see that.

It's a question that gets to the heart of whose opinions are and are not valid and the answer to that question tells us who is worth paying attention to and who can be ignored.

[Marshmallo]

Just now, JTS98 said:

tells us who is worth paying attention to and who can be ignored.

I think we've established that right here on This Very Thread, baby!

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Marshmallo said:

I think we've established that right here on This Very Thread, baby!

You enjoy your red-dotting.

 

[Guest JTS98]

13 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

PS I have reported you for calling me a coward

Irony is...

[NotThePars]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

You clearly don't know what a straw man is. It's a fashionable term, but you're just showing that you don't understand how an argument develops.

It is perfectly valid in the context of a discussion where a black BBC employee has voiced an opinion and people are discussing that in a debate to ask whether white people can disagree with people on race issues. If you don't see that, then you don't see that.

It's a question that gets to the heart of whose opinions are and are not valid and the answer to that question tells us who is worth paying attention to and who can be ignored.

It's not a fashionable term at all. It's about ten years out of date (or whenever New Atheism stopped being cool). I feel dirty just for using it but it's what you're doing.

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

You enjoy your red-dotting.

 

[D Angelo Barksdale]

15 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

As I explained in my previous post, your answers to my questions are necessary for the conversation to continue.

I'm not going to ask again, so just let me know whether you're going to answer or not. I'll answer your question as soon as you answer mine.

I've asked you 3 times now. You've failed to answer, instead descending into what can only be described as primary school level 'no, you first'.

Admittedly, some of the fault here is mine for trying to engage in the first place, given your ongoing posting nightmare across numerous threads this summer.

I'm going to concede here as you've clearly no intention of answering me, so congratulations on your massive victory in the marketplace of ideas.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, ali_91 said:

The idea that white people’s opinions hold the same level of importance on what is and what isn’t offensive to black people as black people’s opinions is some next level white narcissism. 
 

1 - Can a white person disagree with a black person over what is and isn’t racism? To a certain extent, and on an individual level, yes.
 

2 - Should a white person tell black people what they should and shouldn’t be offended by, and what battles they should and shouldn’t pick? Obviously not. 

This post:

is the latter, not the former. 
 

Very simple stuff. 

 

You'd have a point if what we were discussing was what was 'offensive' rather than what was justified.

People are offended by things all the time. That doesn't mean they're not justified. Religious people might be offended by something which is perfectly justified, and I doubt you'd argue we should just listen to them and outlaw the thing that offends them.

You keep trying to frame this as white people telling black people what is ok and what's not ok. That's either ill-informed or disingenuous. This is about society deciding what is and isn't acceptable. That is not achieved by saying 'Group X says this, so we all have to unquestioningly listen to that group'. That's a staggering level of anti-intellectualism.

A factual news report about a racist attack including an important quote showing how racist the attack was is not an inappropriate use of offensive language. It's perfectly valid.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Henderson to deliver ..... said:

I've asked you 3 times now. You've failed to answer, instead descending into what can only be described as primary school level 'no, you first'.

Admittedly, some of the fault here is mine for trying to engage in the first place, given your ongoing posting nightmare across numerous threads this summer.

I'm going to concede here as you've clearly no intention of answering me, so congratulations on your massive victory in the marketplace of ideas.

I've answered above in response to Marshmallo.

[Gaz]

Just now, JTS98 said:

A factual news report about a racist attack including an important quote showing how racist the attack was is not an inappropriate use of offensive language. It's perfectly valid.

If the person was called a "black c**t" should the BBC reporter have said that?

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Gaz said:

If the person was called a "black c**t" should the BBC reporter have said that?

If it was relevant to the report and after the watershed, yes.

 

[Marshmallo]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

I've answered above in response to Marshmallo.

By misreading my post and trying to paint me as some sort of halfwit