Slave Trader Edward Colston's statue torn down in Bristol

Eric Cartman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

feminist=lesbian. interesting idea.

I mentioned that and the suffragettes and non lesbian women engaging in violence.

but in my experience the Venn diagram of lesbians to feminists has a hell of a lot of overlap, that said its just my experience and I have no data for that, but I would always have correlated the two.

jam_mac_jam

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you literally mentioned feminist violence a post ago... I replied about women being violent, its an issue...

I literally mentioned it in the context of what we are talking about. But I think you know that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I mentioned that and the suffragettes and non lesbian women engaging in violence.

but in my experience the Venn diagram of lesbians to feminists has a hell of a lot of overlap, that said its just my experience and I have no data for that, but I would always have correlated the two.

What experienes have you had?

Also, what exactly do you mean by "feminist"? I think different people are using different definitions here.

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I mentioned that and the suffragettes and non lesbian women engaging in violence.

but in my experience the Venn diagram of lesbians to feminists has a hell of a lot of overlap, that said its just my experience and I have no data for that, but I would always have correlated the two.

i would be surprised if you knew many of either group

Slowyourrole

Tony EH wrote: »

Oh be quiet.

There's nothing "left" going on in the riots in Britain. It's a bunch of hooligans out to damage stuff and look for trouble. I'd wager about 90% of those thugs on the street couldn't care less about left wing politics. They're just there fuck shit up.

As for Floyd...he's been totally been forgotten about.

There's nothing "left" in the riots because the riots are mostly right wing with no legitimate cause. The left wing marches and demonstrations have been going on in a generally peaceful manner all over the country with a few violent incidents in concentrated spots.

ThunbergsAreGo

Slowyourrole wrote: »

There's nothing "left" in the riots because the riots are mostly right wing with no legitimate cause. The left wing marches and demonstrations have been going on in a generally peaceful manner all over the country with a few violent incidents in concentrated spots.

More police were injured in the previous weeks protests in London than this.

I agree there is nothing "left" in the riots, that doesnt mean riots dont occur at "left-led" protests. These are just thugs supporting both sides.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yeah huge problem with feminist violence. Absolute scourge.

Actually, on US campuses or when there are events held by men's rights groups to promote male issues, you'll find groups of feminists(m/f/other), sjw's (which overlaps with hardcore/militant feminism), and other groups, who are openly hostile to those campaigning. Which includes throwing objects/liquids, pushing/shoving/hitting etc.

It's usually just passed off/dismissed, since few women have the physical strength to hurt a man easily, but the violence is still there. You should attend some meetings/rallies which feminists consider to be 'against' their cause. It's an eye opener. Peaceful protesters are a minority.

In regards to what Eric Cartman said, violence within lesbian relationships is very large, but it's rarely reported commonly. Do some searches, and you'll understand the reference. While in Europe, few women identify as feminists, they've got a very large following in the US (depending on the form of feminism).

Nozebleed

Slowyourrole wrote: »

There's nothing "left" in the riots because the riots are mostly right wing with no legitimate cause. The left wing marches and demonstrations have been going on in a generally peaceful manner all over the country with a few violent incidents in concentrated spots.

delusional.

Slowyourrole

Slowyourrole wrote: »

There's nothing "left" in the riots because the riots are mostly right wing with no legitimate cause. The left wing marches and demonstrations have been going on in a generally peaceful manner all over the country with a few violent incidents in concentrated spots.

I disagree. There are some elements of the left, when it comes to young people who are more likely to resort to vandalism, or acts of violence while protesting, especially if it means that they can do so against the Police. It's not that they are inherently violent, but they've been given an excuse to show their hatred of the establishment. This idea that the left is made up of "peace-loving hippies" is so out of touch with modern society. It's become far more complicated than simply labeling people left or right. It's about 'issues' now, not politics.

Tony EH

Slowyourrole wrote: »

There's nothing "left" in the riots because the riots are mostly right wing with no legitimate cause. The left wing marches and demonstrations have been going on in a generally peaceful manner all over the country with a few violent incidents in concentrated spots.

The marches and demonstrations against Floyd's murder and the general mistreatment of black folk by law enforcement in the States was a perfectly fine thing and people were right to take to streets and make their voices heard over that.

It all starts to crumble when you get dickheads, rioting, ripping down statues and causing trouble, and in turn encouraging other dickheads to come out with their bottom feeding ideas.

George Floyd? Sure who's he? Dead and buried in his gold coffin and all but forgotten about.

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. There are some elements of the left, when it comes to young people who are more likely to resort to vandalism, or acts of violence while protesting, especially if it means that they can do so against the Police. It's not that they are inherently violent, but they've been given an excuse to show their hatred of the establishment. This idea that the left is made up of "peace-loving hippies" is so out of touch with modern society. It's become far more complicated than simply labeling people left or right. It's about 'issues' now, not politics.

I believe it has become the intersectionalists vs non-intersectionalists.
The left has abandoned many of their comrades.

2u2me

Tony EH wrote: »

It all starts to crumble when you get dickheads, rioting, ripping down statues and causing trouble, and in turn encouraging other dickheads to come out with their bottom feeding ideas.

"Really there isn't one left. There is an ascendant orthodoxy on the left that is very troubling. It is quite broad but I think not very deep and there is a mirror image of that on the far right, and both of these things are to be feared. The problem is when you speak out from a perspective on the left that doesn't fit this orthodoxy you are immediately classified as on the right, which makes it look as though the left is monolithic and shares this opinion; but this is not the case"

Brett Weinstein

Edgware

2u2me wrote: »

I believe it has become the intersectionalists vs non-intersectionalists.
The left has abandoned many of their comrades.

Is it a Marxist Leninist viewpoint or a Leninist Marxist viewpoint?

2u2me

Edgware wrote: »

Is it a Marxist Leninist viewpoint or a Leninist Marxist viewpoint?

Probably one of them.

"They must all come together to fight their common enemy, the group that sits at the top of the pyramid of oppression: the straight, white, cis-gendered, able-bodied Christian or Jewish or possibly atheist male. This is why a perceived slight against one victim group calls forth protest from all victim groups. This is why so many campus groups now align against Israel. Intersectionality is like NATO for social-justice activists"
Jonathan Haidt

Tony EH

2u2me wrote: »

"Really there isn't one left. There is an ascendant orthodoxy on the left that is very troubling. It is quite broad but I think not very deep and there is a mirror image of that on the far right, and both of these things are to be feared. The problem is when you speak out from a perspective on the left that doesn't fit this orthodoxy you are immediately classified as on the right, which makes it look as though the left is monolithic and shares this opinion; but this is not the case"

Brett Weinstein

There isn't really one "right" either. The wings of either side of politics is very broad.

But, it's a completely thoughtless exercise to continually label everything one dislikes as "the left", when many of those that are targeted haven't any real left wing ideas at all and are mostly just interested in pushing their one issue. They could, in fact, be entirely on the right with regards to everything else.

robinph

Some nice trolling of the lads who were "protecting" statues over the weekend.

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/mystery-statue-appears-by-empty-colston-plinth/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tony EH wrote: »

There isn't really one "right" either. The wings of either side of politics is very broad.

But, it's a completely thoughtless exercise to continually label everything one dislikes as "the left", when many of those that are targeted haven't any real left wing ideas at all and are mostly just interested in pushing their one issue. They could, in fact, be entirely on the right with regards to everything else.

This is the problem: there's no problem with implying that everything "left" is all hippie or woke or communist or marxist; but if you imply everything "right" as all fascist or racist, the moderate right will scream at you.

mick087

robinph wrote: »

Some nice trolling of the lads who were "protecting" statues over the weekend.

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/mystery-statue-appears-by-empty-colston-plinth/

I didnt even know Bristol had an all lives matter protest on Saturday.
The idea is good but i think to many people will look for bad in no matter what anyone does now.

robinph

mick087 wrote: »

I didnt even know Bristol had an all lives matter protest on Saturday.
The idea is good but i think to many people will look for bad in no matter what anyone does now.

Was apparently a just few guys on motorbikes and some racists shouting from the top of the empty plinth claiming not to be racist but...

lawrencesummers

If pulling down a statue of a slave trader upsets you then your either

A) A Racist
A Pigeon

statesaver

Any book burning yet ?

2u2me

lawrencesummers wrote: »

If pulling down a statue of a slave trader upsets you then your either

A) A Racist
A Pigeon

That made me laugh.

Aren't people commemorated for their achievements and not their views though?

What about Lincoln, he had slaves and probably did more than anyone else to end slavery. Should he have a statue?

The aztecs once did the same to their history, erased everything. It's a shame as there are many people alive today to know about this rich history, however gruesome as it was.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

That made me laugh.

Aren't people commemorated for their achievements and not their views though?

What about Lincoln, he had slaves and probably did more than anyone else to end slavery. Should he have a statue?

The aztecs once did the same to their history, erased everything. It's a shame as there are many people alive today to know about this rich history, however gruesome as it was.

We're not talking about somebody who possessed slaves, we're discussing a person who actively made his wealth from slavery. He should not ever have been treated as a figure of veneration which is what such statues are for.

MontgomeryClift

robinph wrote: »

Some nice trolling of the lads who were "protecting" statues over the weekend.

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/mystery-statue-appears-by-empty-colston-plinth/

Ah, yes. More mockery of the white working class.

The people who made this must be very brave to side with capitalism, mega-corporations, mass media, international finance and practically every government on earth.

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

We're not talking about somebody who possessed slaves, we're discussing a person who actively made his wealth from slavery. He should not ever have been treated as a figure of veneration which is what such statues are for.

Ok that's fair enough; slave traders that are being venerated I'm with you.

Perhaps I'm mistaken though but didn't Lincoln fit the bill of " a person who actively made his wealth from slavery"?

nullzero

lawrencesummers wrote: »

If pulling down a statue of a slave trader upsets you then your either

A) A Racist
A Pigeon

An astute observation, delivered using perfect grammar.

joe40

2u2me wrote: »

That made me laugh.

Aren't people commemorated for their achievements and not their views though?

What about Lincoln, he had slaves and probably did more than anyone else to end slavery. Should he have a statue?

The aztecs once did the same to their history, erased everything. It's a shame as there are many people alive today to know about this rich history, however gruesome as it was.

Removing statues is not erasing history. It is simply a society choosing who they to honour or celebrate.
That can change as times change. Soviet statues were removed in many Eastern European countries since it no longer represented who they wished to honour.
The history remains.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

Ok that's fair enough; slave traders that are being venerated I'm with you.

Perhaps I'm mistaken though but didn't Lincoln fit the bill of " a person who actively made his wealth from slavery"?

Gonna need a source on that, his family lived in Indiana for his formative years where slavery was prohibited. His family held anti-slavery views. He worked primarily in law. He also did not own slaves as you've previously claimed. So no, he did not make his wealth from slavery.

is_that_so

joe40 wrote: »

Removing statues is not erasing history. It is simply a society choosing who they to honour or celebrate.
That can change as times change. Soviet statues were removed in many Eastern European countries since it no longer represented who they wished to honour.
The history remains.

Just as long as it is society that is making those decisions. Most people can't tell you what memorials mean as they are part of the landscape.

2u2me

joe40 wrote: »

Removing statues is not erasing history. It is simply a society choosing who they to honour or celebrate.
That can change as times change. Soviet statues were removed in many Eastern European countries since it no longer represented who they wished to honour.
The history remains.

It's just surprising the parallels between what we're seeing now and Mao's cultural revolution. They literally erased history and the statues were the first to go.

History has shown that the “cultural revolution". initiated by a leader labouring under a misapprehension and capitalized on by counter-revolutionary cliques, led to domestic turmoil and brought catastrophe to the Party, the state and the whole people.

source