Mr.Carrow

The argument these days is less Left Vs Right and more Authoritarian Vs Libertarian.

There's a good German film called "The Wave" about the dangers of groupthink, authoritarianism and social coercion. Having met and traveled with many Germans in many different countries, I've got the impression that an understanding of the tactics of these groups is quite a big thing within German culture (for understandable reasons).

His wife may not be happy but maybe an extra £5k per week may see her come around 😁 Imagine what an influence Tettey must be on the academy boys. Assist on his 250th, the man's a colossus.

My girlfriend and three nieces are part of a non-white demographic which, on average, is one of the top performers educationally and financially within the UK. I'm looking for one of you highly educated and morally enlightened folk to come round to teach them about how they are unfairly advantaged by their "something privilege" within our, errrrr "racist white supremacy". Any takers?

Btw I believe the trick used in the (extremely clever) BLM name is called the Motte and Bailey tactic. You construct a lovely progressive sounding name and definition which no-one in their right mind can disagree with (Motte), then say and promote all kinds of outrageous and controversial stuff (Bailey). If you get caught out in the Bailey, you retreat to the Motte and accuse those questioning you as being against the wholly pure and progressive values of the Motte. Feminists do this all the time: get called out for #killallmen, rape culture, "all men are potential rapists" etc then retreat to the "The dictionary definition of feminism is equality between the sexes. If you are questioning feminism you obviously don't believe in that therefore you're an evil misogynist". It's fundamentally authoritarian: agree with everything we say or you will be attacked and shamed as a terrible person.

Agreed. Funny how nobody wants to engage with it isn't it? 🤔

One of the ironies of the whole "epidemic of racism/systemic racism" narrative is that if this were true the word wouldn't be so unbelievably loaded. It's up there with "paedophile" now and that indicates a society that takes the issue massively seriously rather than one which downplays it or doesn't care about it. If society were awash with racists a lot of people would brush it off and the accusation wouldn't have the enormous power it currently has.

I reckon he might start abusing frogs....😁

That's cultural appropriation 😁

I stated that cultural differences lead to different outcomes. This is a factually accurate statement backed up by people like Phillips and supported by the statistics you yourself posted showing some non-white groups doing far better than others. It isn't exclusive of other factors as you claim. When you've misunderstood something it's sometimes better to do a mea culpa and stop digging. But if it makes you feel better you have totally persuaded me that splitting the population between different immutable trait based identity groups with different oppression and privilege levels (even though the statistics and Social attitude surveys don't support this approach) is a great way for the Left to win elections. You win. Forward together comrade!

"Read critically". Given that your demonstration of that on this thread has been to twist language to impute the worst motivations (including not particularly subtle allusions to racism) onto people who point out the flaws in your argument, I won't be taking your advice thanks. This "I know what you're REALLY thinking" tendency is like a disease amongst much of the Left and is being explicitly pushed within academia.

Hmmm, who to believe? Badger or a black man brought up in multi-ethnic communities and involved in this field at the highest level for decades....🤔 It's a toughie.

By the way, the statement "road X leads to destination Y" doesn't in any way infer that there are no other roads between X and Y. If I stated that "chocolate makes you fat", that statement in no way makes the claim that cake doesn't also make you fat. Stating that "differing cultural factors lead to different outcomes" in no way implies that other factors do not also lead to different outcomes. (Another irony is that it's only you outright denying the influence of an important factor-as evidenced by the false choice you gave Ron) Your understanding of the English language also seems to be based on magical thinking....

What have black Americans got to do with the statistics you posted to "prove" your point, that actually disproved it? Given that you are getting emotional rather than answering my question re. wanting to hear a reason why some non-white groups are doing very well in the UK despite being "targeted for demise" in your own words, I think I'll leave it there. Trevor Phillips dared to state plainly what the Idpol Left are refusing to acknowledge and the way he was treated was telling. Magical thinking is just so comforting isn't it? The Idpol Left is now regarded as unmoored from reality on many issues and as such is almost certainly unelectable. Congratulations on your part in that.

You chose to impute that by talking about culture leading to different outcomes I was automatically discounting other factors (despite calling it "very complicated" earlier in the thread). That was a bad faith move. You then espouse a nice, egalitarian take on poverty which I agree with, without seeming to understand that the identity politics/intersectional/critical theory worldview is something completely different calling for a completely different approach. If you don't understand this distinction then there is little to discuss until you have updated your knowledge. Your "discrimination" narrative is largely just that, a narrative. The stats you quote as your best evidence show certain non-white groups doing very well. You have to account for why they don't seem to be "targeted for demise" for your belief to hold much water. Immigrants generally come to the UK because they are poor. To then point to that poverty and say "see, they are clearly discriminated against!" is just risible. Again, this really isn't serious.

"If the UK government were to allocate a few billion to fight abject poverty, where would you like to see it targeted? The very poorest communities (which would be predominantly white), or communities with the highest "oppressed" identity markers?" Why is this question so difficult to answer?

So you are still ducking my questions then. I never said culture was the only factor, but the fact that you want to dismiss it entirely shows that your argument simply isn't serious. You have to explain huge differences in outcome amongst different ethnic groups across western societies. Are some "targeted for demise" whilst others are positivity targeted? That seems to be the only logical conclusion to your belief system.

If you read my posts again you will see that I haven't even given an opinion on taking the knee or Millwall fans antics. However, the act is inextricably linked with BLM and my focus has been on the roots/philosophy of the movement and whether it's taking culture in a healthy direction or can in any way lead to the greater equality we both want to see. I talk about identity politics because BLM grew from Critical Race Theory which explicitly calls for a race based white/black oppressor/victim analysis of culture. This in turn stemmed from Marcuse and the Frankfurt School thinkers reinvention of Marxist proletariat/bourgeoisie dichotomy switching it to identity groups (sometimes called neo-Marxism). If you add in the post-modern obsession with"controlling the narrative" then you have a very clear, intentional movement which seems intent on pitting different identity groups against each other. This is very difficult to explain, hence the links to books and various thinkers but putting it simply- I still believe in the utility of the original Marxist analysis but I find the twisting of it by the neo-Marxists genuinely frightening and divisive.

As I said, completely un-selfaware. The irony here is that I'm probably closer to being a Marxist than you are. The divisiveness inherent in identity politics is antithetical to Marxism and thinkers who lean that way such as Zizek, Chomsky and Hitchens have spoken out against it. The World Socialist Website, for example, has taken a lot of heat for speaking out against Idpol and cancel culture.

This article written by an esteemed African American academic gets to the heart of the agenda I am alluding to. Yes, DiAngelo, Kendo, Coates and other Critical Race baiters DO explicitly state that all white people are racist and every interaction between a white human and a black human is imbued with uni-directional racism. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

Written by an esteemed African American academic (for context "White Fragility" is one of the biggest selling books of recent decades in the US): https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/dehumanizing-condescension-white-fragility/614146/

This is so funny. In your first paragraph you do exactly what you call out in the second. So utterly un-selfaware.