George Floyd Death - Derek Chauvin Guilty of Murder

[Bluewolf]

51 minutes ago, Stan said:

Yeah I cba with that

 

I am not shocked at that... I mean you couldn't be arsed to even write couldn't be arsed properly... 

[nudge]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I think part if the problem is that some people are concentrating on casual and unintentual  racism  that many black or ethnic minority are not offended by. I do wonder whether this is causing some issues because some people feel they are being called racist when that is not there attention. This means that they are being put in the same category as people who are very intentionally racist. However I do also believe that it isn't someone like me,s(a white British male) place to tell someone who is black or ethnic minority that something isn't offensive.

@Stan as someone who is part of an ethnic minority. What are your thoughts?

I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but I'd say that as a general rule, if something requires extensive research to decide whether or not it could potentially be offensive to someone, or whether it might have indirect link to some dark part of the history of humanity, then it's definitely taking it way too far.

[Guest]

@Bluewolf just because people didn't consider things racist when you were young doesn't mean they aren't racist. I've heard people say words like paki and nigger weren't offensive years ago. Well they are now and always were offensive to black and Asian people 

[Guest]

Just now, nudge said:

I agree with the essence of what you're saying, but I'd say that as a general rule, if something requires extensive research to decide whether or not it could potentially be offensive to someone, or whether it might have indirect link to some dark part of the history of humanity, then it's definitely taking it way too far.

I would agree with that to a certain extent. What would argue though is that if it then becomes common knowledge that something has racial undertones it has then becomes racist. However I don't think think going back and checking everything to see if it could be racist is a good idea. I think if people aren't aware of it then it is not meant in a racist way and therefore in a way isn't racist. The more things we go back and check the more things become racist if you get what I mean @Stanagain I like to get your thoughts as I think your opinion is very important on the matter 

[Guest]

The thing is in now days people have access to a lot more information than they did years ago. It's a good thing but does mean that people can find out the history of certain things much easier. This means that people are much more aware of why something may be considered racist or offensive. The older generation didn't have that access to information so for them it can be harder to understand why certain things are suddenly considered racist. 

[RandoEFC+]

36 minutes ago, nudge said:

I would argue that most of those people are not "remotely arsed" about commentators using specific phrases though, but rather about what they perceive as an increasing censorship of things with no valid reason (whether it's speech, public communication, music, books, tv shows, movies or anything else). Big difference, imo.

Yeah but when people try to censor things that actually matter they face a backlash. When they try and censor stuff like nitty gritty then if it helps them feel busy then who actually cares?

The word bouncebackability was banned in football commentary about 20 years ago for no apparent reason. A big fuss was kicked up about snowflakes and unnecessary censorship and you cant say anything anymore, the word got banned anyway and then nothing happened. Television, media, books, art, free speech and statues all survived that. 

It really is a fuss over nothing. People are going to get overly offended by things and you can't stop them so why waste any energy on it.

[Bluewolf]

7 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Bluewolf just because people didn't consider things racist when you were young doesn't mean they aren't racist. I've heard people say words like paki and nigger weren't offensive years ago. Well they are now and always were offensive to black and Asian people 

Well that's where you misunderstand me as a person completely..... I was indeed raised in a time where offensive language and racist comments were common place but where have I ever said anywhere at anytime that that was not offensive??? It was commonplace but not ok... I was lucky, my parents were never racist and I never heard a word uttered from their mouths in that regard and maybe that is what helped, On the other hand it could just be that I am a fairly decent bloke who just treats people from all walks of life regardless of race, gender or standing with a bit of respect... 

It's only right that these things are being dealt with but let's not pretend I was in a majority of people back in the day that behaved like I did, I have heard it all in my lifetime from football matches, pubs, clubs and in the workplace and trust me a lot of it was ugly, real ugly.. It was never acceptable then and still isn't now so it's good that we are looking to try and eradicate it but as @nudge pointed out the essence of my post was about going too far in a direction that does nothing for the cause... We are now going from what is offensive to what used to be offensive and now we seem to be digging up stuff that may have been offensive and at what point do we all stop??? You can't just have a runaway train on everything... people need to reign in the silly stuff and start focusing on the real issues.

I said the same thing in another post a while back, At what point will it be enough for everyone to be happy?? Not allowing a lot of the types of words you mentioned above is fine, totally on board with all of that and no-one needs to be hearing any of that and if a few statues need to be taken down because the world is changing it's overall views on our past then to a degree I am on board with that as well because change from what people are used to is often hardest at the beginning but we have to start somewhere right?

We just seem to be on this crazy ride where we are banning the use of words, films, books because they are deemed offensive but then when we run out of stuff that clearly is offensive we start digging deeper to be offended by things that are not even offensive... My generation are a lot more thick skinned and not so easily offended by stuff it's true but the older i get the less patience I tend to have for the silly stuff.... 

[nudge]

47 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Yeah but when people try to censor things that actually matter they face a backlash. When they try and censor stuff like nitty gritty then if it helps them feel busy then who actually cares?

The word bouncebackability was banned in football commentary about 20 years ago for no apparent reason. A big fuss was kicked up about snowflakes and unnecessary censorship and you cant say anything anymore, the word got banned anyway and then nothing happened. Television, media, books, art, free speech and statues all survived that. 

It really is a fuss over nothing. People are going to get overly offended by things and you can't stop them so why waste any energy on it.

If some word gets banned and that's the end of it, then yes, you're right - it's a non-issue and nobody actually cares. If, however, it has potential to set a precedent, become a tendency and lead to the rise of censorship, then I'd say it's a valid ground for concern. I'm not discussing the current state of your society or any specific cases here, by the way; I do not live in the UK, never did, and English is not my first language, so I do not feel qualified to. However, I can absolutely fathom why people would be irked with any attempt to censor things that they don't think warrant censoring, especially if they perceive it as an ongoing trend instead of a single isolated occurrence. 

[Stan]

2 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I think part if the problem is that some people are concentrating on casual and unintentual  racism  that many black or ethnic minority are not offended by. I do wonder whether this is causing some issues because some people feel they are being called racist when that is not there attention. This means that they are being put in the same category as people who are very intentionally racist. However I do also believe that it isn't someone like me,s(a white British male) place to tell someone who is black or ethnic minority that something isn't offensive. I think the main priority has to be stopping racism. Is concentrating on smaller issues maybe causing more problems at the moment and making things worse? 

@Stan as someone who is part of an ethnic minority. What are your thoughts?

I'm not entirely sure what you'd like my thoughts on .

I think it's ironic that when someone is called racist, they get all triggered at such an accusation without taking in to account why that person on the receiving end of it feels there was racism was involved. And suddenly the person who gets the racism/racist comment is made to feel like the bad guy. There's a discourse there that needs to be broken because it just ends up as a one-way conversation and you feel like talking to a brick wall.

Person X: "says something that is racist"
Person Y: "you're being racist when you say that"
Person X: "what? No, you just can't take a bit of banter, it's not racist. I didn't mean it like that".

That's pretty much like some conversations I've had with people. Goes back to what I was saying earlier - people play it off as banter and 'humour'. It's ironic because it almost offends them if you call them out for their racist views. They don't like being called a racist but somehow they think it's fine to dish out the racism in the first place .

It's not up to the person dishing it out to decide who gets offended by what. If you call someone a paki/nigger don't be surprised if you're met with some kind of reaction, hostlie or not.

You're definitely right in saying the main priority has to be stopping racism. But with that, and even though it shouldn't be the case, comes education. However that education can only be given if people are willing to listen. But in most cases people are so deep in to their own thoughts that their willingness to listen is not very high.

  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bluewolf said:

Well that's where you misunderstand me as a person completely..... I was indeed raised in a time where offensive language and racist comments were common place but where have I ever said anywhere at anytime that that was not offensive??? It was commonplace but not ok... I was lucky, my parents were never racist and I never heard a word uttered from their mouths in that regard and maybe that is what helped, On the other hand it could just be that I am a fairly decent bloke who just treats people from all walks of life regardless of race, gender or standing with a bit of respect... 

It's only right that these things are being dealt with but let's not pretend I was in a majority of people back in the day that behaved like I did, I have heard it all in my lifetime from football matches, pubs, clubs and in the workplace and trust me a lot of it was ugly, real ugly.. It was never acceptable then and still isn't now so it's good that we are looking to try and eradicate it but as @nudge pointed out the essence of my post was about going too far in a direction that does nothing for the cause... We are now going from what is offensive to what used to be offensive and now we seem to be digging up stuff that may have been offensive and at what point do we all stop??? You can't just have a runaway train on everything... people need to reign in the silly stuff and start focusing on the real issues.

I said the same thing in another post a while back, At what point will it be enough for everyone to be happy?? Not allowing a lot of the types of words you mentioned above is fine, totally on board with all of that and no-one needs to be hearing any of that and if a few statues need to be taken down because the world is changing it's overall views on our past then to a degree I am on board with that as well because change from what people are used to is often hardest at the beginning but we have to start somewhere right?

We just seem to be on this crazy ride where we are banning the use of words, films, books because they are deemed offensive but then when we run out of stuff that clearly is offensive we start digging deeper to be offended by things that are not even offensive... My generation are a lot more thick skinned and not so easily offended by stuff it's true but the older i get the less patience I tend to have for the silly stuff.... 

Well first of all I was never suggesting that you are racist so I'm sorry if that was what you thought I meant. My point though is that I don't believe it is a white persons place to tell a black person they are being to sensitive when they are the ones who have had to put up with the abuse.  Also we have to remember that racism has caused some of the worst things in human history. Black and ethnic minorites have every right to be offended by certain things.  At the same time I  do agree that some of the things that are being  censored do seem trivial and I'm not actually sure if many black people would be that offended. I think the thing to do is talk to black people more and see if they are particularly offended by certain things.  You have to remember  that a lot of the time the people censoring these things are in suits they aren't necessarily  representing what a lot of black people think. Also you have to remember that people can be a bit offended  by something but  not necessarily want it censored. There are things that offend me because they affected me but that doesn't  mean I want it censored. 

I also don't think your generation was as thick skinned as you make out. People have always been offended by things but we are a lot more aware of it in now days.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Stan said:

I'm not entirely sure what you'd like my thoughts on .

I think it's ironic that when someone is called racist, they get all triggered at such an accusation without taking in to account why that person on the receiving end of it feels there was racism was involved. And suddenly the person who gets the racism/racist comment is made to feel like the bad guy. There's a discourse there that needs to be broken because it just ends up as a one-way conversation and you feel like talking to a brick wall.

Person X: "says something that is racist"
Person Y: "you're being racist when you say that"
Person X: "what? No, you just can't take a bit of banter, it's not racist. I didn't mean it like that".

That's pretty much like some conversations I've had with people. Goes back to what I was saying earlier - people play it off as banter and 'humour'. It's ironic because it almost offends them if you call them out for their racist views. They don't like being called a racist but somehow they think it's fine to dish out the racism in the first place .

It's not up to the person dishing it out to decide who gets offended by what. If you call someone a paki/nigger don't be surprised if you're met with some kind of reaction, hostlie or not.

You're definitely right in saying the main priority has to be stopping racism. But with that, and even though it shouldn't be the case, comes education. However that education can only be given if people are willing to listen. But in most cases people are so deep in to their own thoughts that their willingness to listen is not very high.

  

I think education is key. But I think education on critical thinking is the main thing. People need to be taught how to think more logically and not emotionally. Emotional thinking is what causes racism. It's also caused Brexit and trump to be president. 

What I wanted your thoughts on is the censorship. What are you personally offended by and do you support certain censorship?

[Stan]

20 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

What I wanted your thoughts on is the censorship. What are you personally offended by and do you support certain censorship?

Certain censorship yes. As @nudge said though when you go searching for it way back in history it's probably a bit too far. There has to be limits and levels. But that's difficult with how opinionated people are these days and their ability to make that vocal (social media campaigns etc). It's volatile. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

Certain censorship yes. As @nudge said though when you go searching for it way back in history it's probably a bit too far. There has to be limits and levels. But that's difficult with how opinionated people are these days and their ability to make that vocal (social media campaigns etc). It's volatile. 

I think we agree to be honest. Like i said if you look for things you can quite often find them. I think it needs to be based on what people are aware of. I mean if no one is aware of what something means it isn't offensive in a way.

[Harry]

5 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I think it is used by racist people as a justification to spread hate though. I mean look at the video I posted. The guy said it was wrong because of the virus but then said he was going to an anti protest.

Exactly. It is something that is attacked by one side and defended by another. But as someone not on either side I just think it's a bad idea to be forming large gatherings, and flagrantly violating lockdowns. It's totally understandable, but it had big downsides, obviously a risk it significantly increases the spread, but also just the impact on people watching on tv, who've been so good complying with lockdown rules... You see the biggest violation of those times ever, and it being supported by many politicians, and people saying there's no evidence protests worsened the spread, and you make a mental note that next lockdown you'll give yourself more slack not to comply.

Not taking away from the cause, particularly in America where the injustice is palpable and major change is needed.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Harry said:

Exactly. It is something that is attacked by one side and defended by another. But as someone not on either side I just think it's a bad idea to be forming large gatherings, and flagrantly violating lockdowns. It's totally understandable, but it had big downsides, obviously a risk it significantly increases the spread, but also just the impact on people watching on tv, who've been so good complying with lockdown rules... You see the biggest violation of those times ever, and it being supported by many politicians, and people saying there's no evidence protests worsened the spread, and you make a mental note that next lockdown you'll give yourself more slack not to comply.

Not taking away from the cause, particularly in America where the injustice is palpable and major change is needed.

I think even as someone who supports the blm movement I still can't deny it would spread the virus.  The moral question is whether the potential benefits outweigh the negatives. You have to remember that innocent lives have been lost in the past for good causes. As it is I think if the movement had waited and then started the protests it would have got more support. However that doesn't address the hypothetical question of if the lives lost are worth it for a better cause. One thing though I definitely think is that I have no issue with a few statues being damaged for a better cause. As I was saying though I think racists do use the coronavirus  as an excuse to criticize the BLM movement.  If it had been something they supported they wouldn't have batted an eyelid.

[CaaC (John)+]

10 hours ago, Bluewolf said:

Just waiting for them to tell us that the word 'cotton' is no longer allowed to be uttered or the phrase " wait a cotton picking minute" 

And it’s not a surprise that this expression originated in the Southern United States, where the cotton industry was, and still is, a major industry. In 19th-century America, cotton was picked by African-American slaves, so the phrase cotton-picking minute can be construed to have some racial overtones, although this is rarely, if ever, its meaning when the phrase is used. In most cases, it’s use is intended to be benign. How it might be received is another story.

Early sources show the adjective cotton-picking being used to refer to anyone who picked cotton, not just black slaves. It was a reference to the difficulty of the job, not the worker. These sources date back to first European cotton plantations in the 1700s, and while the phrase is benign in most instances, still proceed with caution when using it.

The term cotton picker, however, is a 19th-century racist term.

https://writingexplained.org/idiom-dictionary/wait-a-cotton-picking-minute#:~:text=Summary,a Cotton Picking Minute Meaning

[Stan]

I've never even heard the phrase 'wait a cotton picking minute'

How old are you @Bluewolf?! 

[CaaC (John)+]

2 hours ago, Stan said:

I've never even heard the phrase 'wait a cotton picking minute'

How old are you @Bluewolf?! 

Old enough to know better and young enough to do it again 

I know I am older than him as he wasn't old enough at the time by 3 years to enlist for WWI 

[Bluewolf]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

How old are you @Bluewolf?! 

Carbon Dating has so far proven to be inconclusive.... 

[Stan]

45 minutes ago, Bluewolf said:

Carbon Dating has so far proven to be inconclusive.... 

Were your best mates dinosaurs by any chance?

[Stan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53287892

Heartless.

Quote

 

Three US police officers in Colorado have been sacked after they shared photos re-enacting a chokehold used on a black man who later died.

Elijah McClain, 23, died in August last year after being stopped by police.

Another officer resigned over the matter. A local police chief called the images "beyond comprehension".

Mr McClain's case attracted renewed focus in the wake of the death of George Floyd, another unarmed African-American who died in police custody.

The officers who were fired were named as Jason Rosenblatt, Erica Marrero and Kyle Dittrich. The fourth, Jaron Jones, resigned on Tuesday.

Vanessa Wilson, the acting police chief in the Denver suburb of Aurora, where the incident took place, called the images a crime against humanity and decency.

"We are ashamed, we are sickened, and we are angry about what I have to share," she told a news conference.

"While the allegations of this internal affairs case are not criminal, they are a crime against humanity and decency. To even think about doing such a thing is beyond comprehension and it is reprehensible."

One of the pictures shows former officers Dittrich and Jones imitating a neck hold, while Marrero smiles to their left.

Jason Rosenblatt was sent the photos by text and responded "ha ha".

Chief Wilson said she held off releasing the photos until she could share them with Mr McClain's family. Their lawyer called the images "appalling".

Mr McClain was walking in Aurora on 24 August last year when he was stopped by three police officers.

A district attorney report later said there had been an emergency call about a "suspicious person" matching his description.

There was a struggle after Mr McClain resisted contact with the officers, who wanted to search him to see if he was armed, the report says. On body cam footage Mr McClain can be heard saying, "I'm an introvert, please respect my boundaries that I am speaking."

One of the officers then says "he is going for your gun", and they wrestle him to the ground and put him in a chokehold.

The report says Mr McClain lost consciousness, was released from the chokehold, and began to struggle again.

The officers called for assistance, with fire fighters and an ambulance responding. A medic injected Mr McClain with ketamine to sedate him.

Mr McClain was then put in "soft restraints" on a stretcher and put inside the ambulance. The medic who had administered the drug then noticed that Mr McClain's chest "was not rising on its own, and he did not have a pulse". He was declared brain dead on 27 August.

Mr McClain's family allege that the officers used excessive force for about 15 minutes as Mr McClain vomited, begged for them to stop and repeatedly told them he could not breathe. The officers also threatened to set a police dog on him, the family said.

An coroner's autopsy found the cause of death to be undetermined.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has appointed a special prosecutor to review the case. Earlier this month, Aurora police banned the chokehold used on Mr McClain. New rules also say officers must intervene if they see a colleague using excessive force.

 

 

[Honey Honey]

BBC have banned BLM badges as the UK branch is now considered a far left political pressure group and not a moral cause due to their hierarchies calls to defund the police, overthrow capitalism and bang on about zionism and Israel. BT and Sky have also started to distance themselves from BLM. Partly led by Patrice Evra. 

Andros Townsend is trying to keep the phrase BLM away from the organisation. Not sure if decoupling the two is going to be possible in the long run.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

Overthrowing capitalism is the highest calling a man can rise to. 

[6666]

11 hours ago, Harvsky said:

BBC have banned BLM badges as the UK branch is now considered a far left political pressure group and not a moral cause due to their hierarchies calls to defund the police, overthrow capitalism and bang on about zionism and Israel. BT and Sky have also started to distance themselves from BLM. Partly led by Patrice Evra. 

Andros Townsend is trying to keep the phrase BLM away from the organisation. Not sure if decoupling the two is going to be possible in the long run.

Saying anything negative about Israel's politics now results in an instant cancel... insane.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Harvsky said:

BBC have banned BLM badges as the UK branch is now considered a far left political pressure group and not a moral cause due to their hierarchies calls to defund the police, overthrow capitalism and bang on about zionism and Israel. BT and Sky have also started to distance themselves from BLM. Partly led by Patrice Evra. 

Andros Townsend is trying to keep the phrase BLM away from the organisation. Not sure if decoupling the two is going to be possible in the long run.

I think it is more the uk group. Not so much the American group. I don't think there is a hierarchy in BLM. Which means sometimes things are gonna get accoticiated with the group that maybe wasnt what was intended