Racism Report

[Barbe bleu 826]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

Far from it, @Mr Carrow 

 We have of the order of 20,000 genes and a mere handful control pigmentation. I am sorry to break it to you but the lighter pigmentation I suspect we share is an adaptation. Human difference is a continuum, no one has agreed how many races there are or what are their essential features beyound crude generalisations about skin colour, hair texture and a few facial features. Pseudo-scientific Western European ideas about race only began in the seventeenth centuries to replace religion and language as a differentiator and justify oppression and slavery. That is not CRT, that is Biology, Genetics and History.

I think everyone will agree with most of this.

Stratification by race is as old as history, has arisen many times in many places and uses all kinds of myths to perpetuate it. but we should now be in a place where we can see these myths for what they are and move beyond them.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

On 23/04/2021 at 19:19, sonyc said:

One important contributor to understanding oppression is Paulo Freire. He might well be simply dismissed by many because he was: (a) a Brazilian educator, who is perhaps less universally known, and (b) he has been characterised by his "Marxist" views. I wouldn't criticise him here because his main focus is on the dynamics of relationships (and inequality of) from a Marx viewpoint and not about how national states should be run.

In my opinion, he is one of the most important philosophers whose time (arguably of course) is still to come. I am lucky too to have read about him and been able to test out his ideas with similar thinking colleagues in the real world. I am sure therefore through empirical study that the 'oppressed' must feel a sense of personal agency for them to help lead their own individual change. Therefore I can see a viewpoint whereby an oppressed person's views is at the very least very significant and arguably, the most important view.

Barbe, I could give many, many examples of folk who have changed lives for the good (from very humble beginnings) where they have started on their course being and encouraged to feel 'settled' ("settling" being a term we developed to encapsulate a very important stage for a person to begin to find their voice). Once a person feels more on the level with another, you start to have real dialogue. The personal stories of others I have been lucky enough to witness (and partially understand) make up real high points in my life (i.e. a person one might deem oppressed shaking off their chains). An example of privilege one might say.

Freire's main book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" is an excellent source. He outlines how educators and learners can best work together to create change. His definition of oppression is attached below.

Freire often used photos, images etc to encourage those who had educational disadvantage (whether by income, the powerless, etc....in other words, the oppressed). There are other methods.

It is hard here to write without labelling. I do so simply to try and explain his concepts. Anyway, really worth reading up on him if you're interested? There are many neat summaries of his book as well as critiques of Freire's ideas. 

For me, Freire (like Jung too) is very relevant for our world today. His method is really grounded in reality, through trial, through observation. The issue of 'levelling up' is of course political because what else isn't in this field (like the race report)?.... but Freire's work is of deep importance. We have great teachers too who understand education (thankfully!) on this very forum and will know and understand Freire's work. Better than I too.

Apologies for a long-ish post but the aim is simply to reference a point of view worth further exploration 🙂

 

I actually find it amusing that when the oppressed / disenfranchised do end up resorting to violence (as much as it's not the preferred solution), certain quarters focus on that instead of the reasons for their oppression / disenfranchisement. Expecting the oppressed / disenfranchised to remain civil at all times strikes me as a fairly absurd notion at the best of times.

[sonyc 5,519]

15 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I actually find it amusing that when the oppressed / disenfranchised do end up resorting to violence (as much as it's not the preferred solution), certain quarters focus on that instead of the reasons for their oppression / disenfranchisement. Expecting the oppressed / disenfranchised to remain civil at all times strikes me as a fairly absurd notion at the best of times.

Indeed TGS. That was the reason for selecting that exact quote. I didn't reply to the earlier response by RTB because I felt that his comment was picking up on the wrong angle (of course violence is not a good thing and can rarely be condoned). I believe the quote could be read to encompass quite a sarcasm (or should the term "sardonic" apply?). It's why Freire was very keen to ensure his students could feel on a par with him even if momentarily, to feel free to challenge him, to feel like they were able to have a say. Without that ability then they would forever feel trapped within whatever condition they were experiencing.

It's why, in my opinion, you can rarely tell someone what to do, what to think, despite at times feeling you can see a problem when you think they cannot. A person has to understand their own situation and reflect. It is actually quite a responsibility NOT to explain things to people (assuming of course here you know! For me, on many occasions I might actually reflect and decide I don't know). You can involve people, offer ideas etc but to go further risks a degree of failure to recognise another. I believe that is what Freire means by keeping people from being human.

As stated I believe he is under-rated somehow and his work has lots of depth, with ideas and concepts that reach out far beyond the field of education (which is what he is known for). 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

32 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I actually find it amusing that when the oppressed / disenfranchised do end up resorting to violence (as much as it's not the preferred solution), certain quarters focus on that instead of the reasons for their oppression / disenfranchisement. Expecting the oppressed / disenfranchised to remain civil at all times strikes me as a fairly absurd notion at the best of times.

Having read the quote from Freire (someone I am unfamiliar with) he seems to be making a different and more worrying point. Which is that when oppressed people respond to oppression  without being violent that is nevertheless demonised by the oppressors as violence.

In other words, and this strikes me as psychologically highly believable, any challenge, no matter how legitimate or peaceful, to the oppressors' sense of entitlement and superiority is so far beyond the pale, so shocking, that it qualifies in their mind as violent.

Anyone who has watched a few 'Karen' clips on Youtube will see this syndrome in operation. Occasionally almost amusingly, because of the stunning stupidity of the Karens, but other times more seriously.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Having read the quote from Freire (someone I am unfamiliar with) he seems to be making a different and more worrying point. Which is that when oppressed people respond to oppression  without being violent that is nevertheless demonised by the oppressors as violence.

In other words, and this strikes me as psychologically highly believable, any challenge, no matter how legitimate or peaceful, to the oppressors' sense of entitlement and superiority is so far beyond the pale, so shocking, that it qualifies in their mind as violent.

Anyone who has watched a few 'Karen' clips on Youtube will see this syndrome in operation. Occasionally almost amusingly, because of the stunning stupidity of the Karens, but other times more seriously.

I totally agree. Hence why, amongst other things, a status quo may claim "persecution" when in reality all that is sought is an equal share of the pie. When you have a position of privilege, any attempt at levelling it looks like persecution when in reality it's often a case of trying to get a rising tide to lift all boats.

Changing the topic to one I'm more au fait with, as a fiercely single and childfree man, I'm essentially screwed over by most quarters (OECD figures make this crystal clear, especially with tax wedges). Thankfully I'm white and male though, but singlism is rampant. Yet when any attempt at making benefits available to all is mooted, some see it as "marriage is under threat".

[sonyc 5,519]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

I totally agree. Hence why, amongst other things, a status quo may claim "persecution" when in reality all that is sought is an equal share of the pie. When you have a position of privilege, any attempt at levelling it looks like persecution when in reality it's often a case of trying to get a rising tide to lift all boats.

Changing the topic to one I'm more au fait with, as a fiercely single and childfree man, I'm essentially screwed over by most quarters (OECD figures make this crystal clear, especially with tax wedges). Thankfully I'm white and male though, but singlism is rampant. Yet when any attempt at making benefits available to all is mooted, some see it as "marriage is under threat".

Lots of 'isms' are at play - examples (of sorts) of kinds of oppression. The term itself (oppression) comes with quite an emotional force doesn't it. At risk of a Freire-fest here I attach a 50 year look back on his work for interest ( I promise not to post more). I found it eye-opening that Bolsonaro is actively trying to eradicate his work.

Linked to this, it's interesting too that the article references Fromm, another very important thinker, and one of his important tenets was his concepts of "freedom from" and "freedom to"  (I have his book "Fear of Freedom" which is a brilliant analysis of fascism and the qualities in man). 

https://daily.jstor.org/paulo-freires-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed-at-fifty/

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

11 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Lots of 'isms' are at play - examples (of sorts) of kinds of oppression. The term itself (oppression) comes with quite an emotional force doesn't it. At risk of a Freire-fest here I attach a 50 year look back on his work for interest ( I promise not to post more). I found it eye-opening that Bolsonaro is actively trying to eradicate his work.

Linked to this, it's interesting too that the article references Fromm, another very important thinker, and one of his important tenets was his concepts of "freedom from" and "freedom to"  (I have his book "Fear of Freedom" which is a brilliant analysis of fascism and the qualities in man). 

https://daily.jstor.org/paulo-freires-pedagogy-of-the-oppressed-at-fifty/

I'd say that's a bigger one, from Fromm - the notion of "freedom from" and "freedom to". Freedom may arguably be the most emotive word in political discourse.

Defining freedom from something is usually a lot easier. Defining freedom to do something...different kettle of fish.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

Indeed TGS. That was the reason for selecting that exact quote. I didn't reply to the earlier response by RTB because I felt that his comment was picking up on the wrong angle (of course violence is not a good thing and can rarely be condoned). I believe the quote could be read to encompass quite a sarcasm (or should the term "sardonic" apply?). It's why Freire was very keen to ensure his students could feel on a par with him even if momentarily, to feel free to challenge him, to feel like they were able to have a say. Without that ability then they would forever feel trapped within whatever condition they were experiencing.

It's why, in my opinion, you can rarely tell someone what to do, what to think, despite at times feeling you can see a problem when you think they cannot. A person has to understand their own situation and reflect. It is actually quite a responsibility NOT to explain things to people (assuming of course here you know! For me, on many occasions I might actually reflect and decide I don't know). You can involve people, offer ideas etc but to go further risks a degree of failure to recognise another. I believe that is what Freire means by keeping people from being human.

As stated I believe he is under-rated somehow and his work has lots of depth, with ideas and concepts that reach out far beyond the field of education (which is what he is known for). 

But why did I come at it from the wrong angle? Friere included the reference to violence within his definition of oppression, so he absolutely intended it to be part of the definition. 

I actually said everything before that was a good definition of oppression, so I critiqued the entire definition and not just one angle. 

You prefer to side-step the part that mentions violence and I understand why you would be uncomfortable with that, and forgive me for being presumptuous, especially since you come across as a very nonviolent person. 

But Friere includes it so it has to be included. Now as an academic he can't directly condone violence as a method to overcome oppression as this would negatively affect his career and standing as an academic. So he signals his thoughts in a different way. Not for Friere the methods of Gandhi or ML King. But for BLM burning down black neighbourhoods, well that's just us white folks stereotyping minorities, so burn away bro. 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

I totally agree. Hence why, amongst other things, a status quo may claim "persecution" when in reality all that is sought is an equal share of the pie. When you have a position of privilege, any attempt at levelling it looks like persecution when in reality it's often a case of trying to get a rising tide to lift all boats.

Changing the topic to one I'm more au fait with, as a fiercely single and childfree man, I'm essentially screwed over by most quarters (OECD figures make this crystal clear, especially with tax wedges). Thankfully I'm white and male though, but singlism is rampant. Yet when any attempt at making benefits available to all is mooted, some see it as "marriage is under threat".

Wanting an equal share of the pie means you embrace the notion of equality of outcome as opposed to the idea of equality of opportunity that most of us support. 

Equality of outcome is a fanciful idea that simply doesn't, and shouldn't, work in the real world. In your idealised world everybody wants to be a musician and nobody wants to clean the toilets. In the real world we need more toilet cleaners than musicians. 

And we do have a system that lifts all boats currently in place. The income of the lowest quartile today is equivalent in real terms to the median income in 1980.  That's how much living standards have risen for all. But it does require a person to have a job to benefit from rising living standards, so increasing opportunity is the right path towards that goal. 

And as to your other point of paying more as a single, childless man, why shouldn't you pay more? You have fewer personal responsibilities. You do not care for children nor elderly parents. If you believe in socialism then you must agree with the principle of 'each according to their means'  

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

16 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Wanting an equal share of the pie means you embrace the notion of equality of outcome as opposed to the idea of equality of opportunity that most of us support. 

Equality of outcome is a fanciful idea that simply doesn't, and shouldn't, work in the real world. In your idealised world everybody wants to be a musician and nobody wants to clean the toilets. In the real world we need more toilet cleaners than musicians. 

And we do have a system that lifts all boats currently in place. The income of the lowest quartile today is equivalent in real terms to the median income in 1980.  That's how much living standards have risen for all. But it does require a person to have a job to benefit from rising living standards, so increasing opportunity is the right path towards that goal. 

And as to your other point of paying more as a single, childless man, why shouldn't you pay more? You have fewer personal responsibilities. You do not care for children nor elderly parents. If you believe in socialism then you must agree with the principle of 'each according to their means'  

Something of a misrepresentation. An equal share of the pie in this case means in terms of support beforehand, not in the outcomes afterwards. In other words, increasing opportunity due to other factors not getting in the way.

As for my point for the clearly proven fact that single, childfree people pay higher tax wedges, aren't you suddenly being socialist as you're happy taking more of my taxes?


 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Having read the quote from Freire (someone I am unfamiliar with) he seems to be making a different and more worrying point. Which is that when oppressed people respond to oppression  without being violent that is nevertheless demonised by the oppressors as violence.

In other words, and this strikes me as psychologically highly believable, any challenge, no matter how legitimate or peaceful, to the oppressors' sense of entitlement and superiority is so far beyond the pale, so shocking, that it qualifies in their mind as violent.

Anyone who has watched a few 'Karen' clips on Youtube will see this syndrome in operation. Occasionally almost amusingly, because of the stunning stupidity of the Karens, but other times more seriously.

I was dumb. I thought it there was no need to quote the explanation of Freire's views on oppression and the reaction to oppression, since logically what he is saying cannot be misunderstood. But of couse where there is a will to misunderstand. So this is how Freire's views have been summarised here:

Not only do oppressors commit violence against the oppressed...they often stereotype oppressed people as 'violent' for responding to aggression.

Now by definition the responses to oppression Freire is talking about there have to be non-violent. It would make absolutely no sense for him to be be making a point of oppressors categorising violent responses as violent. It only makes sense if the point he is making is that the mindset of oppressors is such that even the mildest and non-violent responses are seen as violent. I don't doubt there are violent responses as well (it wouild be surprising if there were none) but that is not the issue here.

There was an example a year or so back in which a bird-watcher (black) very politely asked a woman (white) to put her dog on a lead because she was in an area of Central Park where birds nested and hatched, and there were even signs about the necessity for that precaution. Her response was to phone 911 and tell the police a black man was threatening to kill her...

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

I was dumb. I thought it there was no need to quote the explanation of Freire's views on oppression and the reaction to oppression, since logically what he is saying cannot be misunderstood. But of couse where there is a will to misunderstand. So this is how Freire's views have been summarised here:

Not only do oppressors commit violence against the oppressed...they often stereotype oppressed people as 'violent' for responding to aggression.

Now by definition the responses to oppression Freire is talking about there have to be non-violent. It would make absolutely no sense for him to be be making a point of oppressors categorising violent responses as violent. It only makes sense if the point he is making is that the mindset of oppressors is such that even the mildest and non-violent responses are seen as violent. I don't doubt there are violent responses as well (it wouild be surprising if there were none) but that is not the issue here.

There was an example a year or so back in which a bird-watcher (black) very politely asked a woman (white) to put her dog on a lead because she was in an area of Central Park where birds nested and hatched, and there were even signs about the necessity for that precaution. Her response was to phone 911 and tell the police a black man was threatening to kill her...

To be fair, the notion of violence can be very fluid. It doesn't necessarily have to be physical.

[sonyc 5,519]

39 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

But why did I come at it from the wrong angle? Friere included the reference to violence within his definition of oppression, so he absolutely intended it to be part of the definition. 

I actually said everything before that was a good definition of oppression, so I critiqued the entire definition and not just one angle. 

You prefer to side-step the part that mentions violence and I understand why you would be uncomfortable with that, and forgive me for being presumptuous, especially since you come across as a very nonviolent person. 

But Friere includes it so it has to be included. Now as an academic he can't directly condone violence as a method to overcome oppression as this would negatively affect his career and standing as an academic. So he signals his thoughts in a different way. Not for Friere the methods of Gandhi or ML King. But for BLM burning down black neighbourhoods, well that's just us white folks stereotyping minorities, so burn away bro. 

It was a reasoned response RTB (that you made) but I felt your emphasis on the last point was something I didn't agree with - in full. I am not uncomfortable with your commentary on it (indeed in reply to TGS I had stated it cannot simply be condoned, simply, despite one's feeling perhaps towards agreement with the action. Think of the Bristol statue for instance. Possibly not a great comparator but you get the idea).

I think the operative word in the definition is the word "often". It demonstrates that those who feel oppressed dare to challenge, their actions are often deemed outrageous. I think you'd probably agree here. As a concept it makes good sense anyway.

Freire spoke about the oppressed also becoming oppressors too at times. Again, not difficult to understand, much the same as those folk who have been abused in some way sometimes become abusers. Freire is worth a far deeper dive....he calls for mutual understanding etc which all sounds a bit soft I grant you but his sense is that both educator and student have things to learn about each other. His method is grounded in dialogue rather than violent action (not read any of his thoughts in this area, which is the very reason I believe you've grasped a concept which is not wholly accurate in being applied to him and that definition. Violence does not always mean physical violence here. Hope this helps in clarification?

[sonyc 5,519]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I was dumb. I thought it there was no need to quote the explanation of Freire's views on oppression and the reaction to oppression, since logically what he is saying cannot be misunderstood. But of couse where there is a will to misunderstand. So this is how Freire's views have been summarised here:

Not only do oppressors commit violence against the oppressed...they often stereotype oppressed people as 'violent' for responding to aggression.

Now by definition the responses to oppression Freire is talking about there have to be non-violent. It would make absolutely no sense for him to be be making a point of oppressors categorising violent responses as violent. It only makes sense if the point he is making is that the mindset of oppressors is such that even the mildest and non-violent responses are seen as violent. I don't doubt there are violent responses as well (it wouild be surprising if there were none) but that is not the issue here.

There was an example a year or so back in which a bird-watcher (black) very politely asked a woman (white) to put her dog on a lead because she was in an area of Central Park where birds nested and hatched, and there were even signs about the necessity for that precaution. Her response was to phone 911 and tell the police a black man was threatening to kill her...

PC,  I'm of much the same opinion. I didn't think the quote (of hundreds I could have chosen) could actually be interpreted in the way RTB did. I'm pleased a couple of posters at least feel the same way.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

9 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Something of a misrepresentation. An equal share of the pie in this case means in terms of support beforehand, not in the outcomes afterwards. In other words, increasing opportunity due to other factors not getting in the way.

As for my point for the clearly proven fact that single, childfree people pay higher tax wedges, aren't you suddenly being socialist as you're happy taking more of my taxes?


 

How can an equal share of the pie equate to equality of opportunity? A pie clearly refers to the outcome, and you are demanding that it should be shared equally without taking into account how that pie got created in the first place? And on the question of taxes, I'm pointing out that the two things you desire are actually at odds with one another. If you want others to have bigger pieces of the pie then it has to come from your share as being single and employed you are in the 'haves' group and not in the 'have not' group.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

9 hours ago, sonyc said:

It was a reasoned response RTB (that you made) but I felt your emphasis on the last point was something I didn't agree with - in full. I am not uncomfortable with your commentary on it (indeed in reply to TGS I had stated it cannot simply be condoned, simply, despite one's feeling perhaps towards agreement with the action. Think of the Bristol statue for instance. Possibly not a great comparator but you get the idea).

I think the operative word in the definition is the word "often". It demonstrates that those who feel oppressed dare to challenge, their actions are often deemed outrageous. I think you'd probably agree here. As a concept it makes good sense anyway.

Freire spoke about the oppressed also becoming oppressors too at times. Again, not difficult to understand, much the same as those folk who have been abused in some way sometimes become abusers. Freire is worth a far deeper dive....he calls for mutual understanding etc which all sounds a bit soft I grant you but his sense is that both educator and student have things to learn about each other. His method is grounded in dialogue rather than violent action (not read any of his thoughts in this area, which is the very reason I believe you've grasped a concept which is not wholly accurate in being applied to him and that definition. Violence does not always mean physical violence here. Hope this helps in clarification?

I read the stuff you wrote about Friere and there was a lot of merit in his point of view, and of course his views would be shaped by the times and environment in which he worked. We don't need to be apologetic about calling for mutual understanding as that is absolutely the way forward in resolving conflict and it's great that you have shared a glimpse into a methodology. As I said in my original post, his definition of oppression is a good one, so thanks for introducing the topics for discussion.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

7 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

How can an equal share of the pie equate to equality of opportunity? A pie clearly refers to the outcome, and you are demanding that it should be shared equally without taking into account how that pie got created in the first place? And on the question of taxes, I'm pointing out that the two things you desire are actually at odds with one another. If you want others to have bigger pieces of the pie then it has to come from your share as being single and employed you are in the 'haves' group and not in the 'have not' group.

The bit in bold is totally incorrect as the cost of living makes that clear. Taxation levels also make my stance clear. We'd be far better off as single, childfree people if we only had taxation levels of married couples instead of being discriminated against at every turn (and even the single discount on council tax results in a rate that's more expensive per capita). That's exactly what I mean by an equal share of the pie. What we do with it afterwards is then the outcome.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 27/04/2021 at 15:10, PurpleCanary said:

I was dumb. I thought it there was no need to quote the explanation of Freire's views on oppression and the reaction to oppression, since logically what he is saying cannot be misunderstood. But of couse where there is a will to misunderstand. So this is how Freire's views have been summarised here:

Not only do oppressors commit violence against the oppressed...they often stereotype oppressed people as 'violent' for responding to aggression.

Now by definition the responses to oppression Freire is talking about there have to be non-violent. It would make absolutely no sense for him to be be making a point of oppressors categorising violent responses as violent. It only makes sense if the point he is making is that the mindset of oppressors is such that even the mildest and non-violent responses are seen as violent. I don't doubt there are violent responses as well (it wouild be surprising if there were none) but that is not the issue here.

There was an example a year or so back in which a bird-watcher (black) very politely asked a woman (white) to put her dog on a lead because she was in an area of Central Park where birds nested and hatched, and there were even signs about the necessity for that precaution. Her response was to phone 911 and tell the police a black man was threatening to kill her...

Nobody applies a match to a fire that is already burning.

[king canary 7,606]

On 27/04/2021 at 15:12, TheGunnShow said:

To be fair, the notion of violence can be very fluid. It doesn't necessarily have to be physical.

One of the most infuriating things about modern 'discourse' in this area is the way 'violence' has been redefined to mean pretty much anything. I get it can be something other than the physical act of it but the term is beyond weaponised now. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

13 minutes ago, king canary said:

One of the most infuriating things about modern 'discourse' in this area is the way 'violence' has been redefined to mean pretty much anything. I get it can be something other than the physical act of it but the term is beyond weaponised now. 

Is that really such a modern thing or are people becoming more aware of the range of meanings behind the term?

That could also be a German-language matter, come to think of it. In fact, I'm just thumbing through a book about a famous German garden and there are some writings / quotations from the gardener behind it, Prince Hermann von Pückler-Muskau, and he clearly uses the German word "Gewalt" to mean what is done to the landscape. "Gewalt" pretty much invariably means "violence".

[horsefly 4,300]

I think this is a pretty good example of violence and/or violent threat:

 

[horsefly 4,300]

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-56979521

 

Dalian Atkinson murder trial: Ex-footballer Tasered and kicked

A murder-accused PC Tasered an ex-footballer for six times longer than is standard before kicking him twice in the head, a jury has heard.

PC Benjamin Monk is charged with the murder of Dalian Atkinson during an altercation in Shropshire in 2016.

He appeared at Birmingham Crown Court for the first day of his trial with co-accused PC Mary Ellen Bettley-Smith, who is charged with assault.

The former Aston Villa star died after he was Tasered for 33 seconds.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-34514044

Black people 'three times more likely' to be Tasered

Black people are three times more likely than white people to be involved in Taser incidents, Home Office figures disclosed to the BBC suggest.

The numbers show the electric stun gun was drawn, aimed or fired 38,000 times in England and Wales over five years.

In more than 12% of cases Tasers were used against black people, who make up about 4% of the population.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

On 29/04/2021 at 06:34, horsefly said:

I think this is a pretty good example of violence and/or violent threat:

 

Oim consssiddderably richer than yow.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

https://www.newsweek.com/i-left-islam-liberal-values-now-woke-liberals-are-embracing-new-religion-opinion-1586128?fbclid=IwAR2wfPzsx4yz9CxcwXxykciI-jpG4dyaJkXDIE7-lK0F9ajKtUSG2rfkyKY

[Herman 9,767]

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/05/04/the-white-working-class-and-woke-capitalism-fake-constructs-in-the-rights-cultural-war/

[horsefly 4,300]

7 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

https://www.newsweek.com/i-left-islam-liberal-values-now-woke-liberals-are-embracing-new-religion-opinion-1586128?fbclid=IwAR2wfPzsx4yz9CxcwXxykciI-jpG4dyaJkXDIE7-lK0F9ajKtUSG2rfkyKY

I suspect that there is no one on this site who would be unhappy with the general support of Enlightenment liberal values that the Omer espouses. He certainly has my support in that respect. Where I differ from him is in his implication that those values have now been effectively overthrown, and we are now in the grip of Stalinistic "woke" authoritarians who have destroyed free speech (I can't help pointing out the irony that all these doomsters claiming the end of free speech seem to find little difficulty in getting their views heard). I have said on many occasions that I am against the so-called "no platforming" of people like Gernaine Greer and Jenny Murray and find it regretful that some students have been naive enough to think this will help promote equality for all. However, let's get real about this; the idea that these fringe activists are posing a threat to the foundational Enlightenment liberal values that underpin Western democracy is at best fanciful, at worse plain lunacy. So let me offer you a personal story of my own in response to the personal story of the author of the linked article.

Sometime ago I introduced an interdisciplinary module specifically on the Enlightenment to the curriculum of a strongly multi-cultural UK university. I felt that most young people in this country had reached university level education without explicitly encountering any real discussion of the Enlightenment principles upon which the democracy and culture they encounted was, and continues to be, founded. I made the bold claim to them that there was not any issue of current cultural significance that could be properly understood if one ignored the importance of the inherited Enlightenment values in framing those issues (so, for example, Omer's rejection of fundamentalist ideology is only explicable in terms of those Enlightenment values promoting autonomy and rationality). The module covers a large range of issues including, free speech, religion, fundamentalism, human rights, tolerance, equality etc, etc. From the beginning the module was a roaring success, so much so that the Vice Chancellor happened to be walking by a group of students on a lecture break one evening and overheard them enthusiastically discussing how much they thought the module was fascinating and essential for all students in order to understand their lives and education. The VC was so moved by this she emailed a description of the encounter to the entire university. Each year's module evaluations confirmed this view of the students' attitude towards the module and the importance of understanding Enlightenment values. 

No doubt I have recounted this story to brag a little and allow a bit of unashamed pride to expose itself. However, more importantly I have recounted it to show that talk of the demise of Western cultural values in the face of authoritarian "wokism" is somewhat premature. My experience is very different from Omar's; the students I encounter continue to be individuals who embrace the core tenets of Enlightenment thinking. No doubt they have to learn to navigate the swelling seas of a social media tsunami of lies that threatens to drown out the true and the valuable, but I retain a faith based on experience that they will prove more than capable of swimming towards the light. Absolutely one should speak out against the very small group of individuals and fundamentalists who attack free speech, but let's not elevate them to a power and influence they clearly do not have. 

[Barbe bleu 826]

Who swapped places with the normal horsefly?

[Van wink 2,994]

10 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Who swapped places with the normal horsefly?

now we know where the £9k goes.....funding  24/7 pink un posts 😉

[horsefly 4,300]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Who swapped places with the normal horsefly?

I would love one of you lot to explain to me (and that includes Bill) why you engage in this  playground behaviour of accusing other people of masquerading as other posters. It really is name calling of the most childish kind. Firstly, I fail to see how you can have any evidence for such a claim. Secondly, what is supposed to be the benefit of posting under multiple identities? Thirdly, I couldn't give a damn whether any of you lot post under other names, so why does the possibility concern you so much? I am seriously perplexed as to why you would rather indulge in this Bart Simpson like behaviour than discuss the issues at hand. Frankly it is nothing more than an irritation that you want to claim that I am really Bill or any of the other names you wish to cite (although a simple grasp of basic linguistic analysis would quickly disabuse you of such nonsense), the fact is I have only ever posted under this name. What really perplexes me is that grown men (it seems to be exclusively men) actually find something worthwhile in posting this absurd tripe. So do feel free to tell me just why you think it is so important to throw around such meaningless unfounded allegations. I just don't get what you think it achieves.