BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

WrenBoy

20Cent wrote: »

Opps someone's be listening to Jordan Peterson here!!!

????

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Opps someone's be listening to Jordan Peterson here!!!

I did listen to Jordan Peterson. I don't agree with everything he says but do agree with him on certain things. I listen to a lot of people in order to have a balance to my views.

I take it from your response that you are in favour of people been given positions or opportunities based on their skin colour/sex and not based on their merit?

That's a mighty strange attitude to have for someone who claims to be in favour of equality.

WrenBoy

WrenBoy wrote: »

????

Im assuming the inference was that if you do not agree with "positive" discrimination you are an acolyte of Jordan Peterson.

20Cent

WrenBoy wrote: »

????

You can tell Jordan Peterson fans a mile away, they use the same disingenuous arguments. For example if someone says equality is a good thing, Peterson will start going on about "equality of outcome" something totally different which is not being suggested by anyone. Like the post above did.

TomTomTim

20Cent wrote: »

You can tell Jordan Peterson fans a mile away, they use the same disingenuous arguments. For example if someone says equality is a good thing, Peterson will start going on about "equality of outcome" something totally different which is not being suggested by anyone. Like the post above did.

This sounds completely rational when you consider the fact that the social justice movement believes in equality of outcome, while most people believe in equality of opportunity. He's simply making a relevant distinction. Why exactly does this bother you?

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

You can tell Jordan Peterson fans a mile away, they use the same disingenuous arguments. For example if someone says equality is a good thing, Peterson will start going on about "equality of outcome" something totally different which is not being suggested by anyone. Like the post above did.

You're way behind the curve there 20cent.

The black lives matter movement is seeking Equity not Equality.

https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/equality-vs-equity-black-lives-matter-richard-elfers/

However some disagree strongly with that - but perhaps not in the way you might think ...

https://medium.com/@eec/this-equity-picture-is-actually-white-supremacy-at-work-59f4ea700509

The idea that people should never criticise the black lives matter movement is often a very unhealthy feature of the current debate tbf.

The usual trick I see is to attack those in public positions supporting a different pov - often this is done by denigrating "fans' by making vague claims such as their arguments are "disingenuous or wtte

The last time I checked - people in the US had a right to free speech. And I hope that remains.

Rubbishing someone because you don't agree with them is really not something to be admired tbh.

nj27

20Cent wrote: »

You can tell Jordan Peterson fans a mile away, they use the same disingenuous arguments. For example if someone says equality is a good thing, Peterson will start going on about "equality of outcome" something totally different which is not being suggested by anyone. Like the post above did.

I'd say it's better to come off like a Jordan Peterson fan than a Blindboy fan like your good self!

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

You can tell Jordan Peterson fans a mile away, they use the same disingenuous arguments. For example if someone says equality is a good thing, Peterson will start going on about "equality of outcome" something totally different which is not being suggested by anyone. Like the post above did.

Are you, or are you not, in favour of "positive" discrimination?

20Cent

TomTomTim wrote: »

This sounds completely rational when you consider the fact that the social justice movement believes in equality of outcome, while most people believe in equality of opportunity. He's simply making a relevant distinction. Why exactly does this bother you?

They don't.

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

You're way behind the curve there 20cent.

The black lives matter movement is seeking Equity not Equality.

https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/equality-vs-equity-black-lives-matter-richard-elfers/

However some disagree strongly with that - but perhaps not in the way you might think ...

https://medium.com/@eec/this-equity-picture-is-actually-white-supremacy-at-work-59f4ea700509

The idea that people should never criticise the black lives matter movement is often a very unhealthy feature of the current debate tbf.

The usual trick I see is to attack those in public positions supporting a different pov - often this is done by denigrating "fans' by making vague claims such as their arguments are "disingenuous or wtte

The last time I checked - people in the US had a right to free speech. And I hope that remains.

Rubbishing someone because you don't agree with them is really not something to be admired tbh.

Black Lives Matter mission statement:

mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes

What other people read into it is immaterial.
Taking an argument to an absurd level is a common technique one Peterson uses as well. Of course there are blog posts on all types of issues claiming they are BLM is not true.

20Cent

nj27 wrote: »

I'd say it's better to come off like a Jordan Peterson fan than a Blindboy fan like your good self!

Don't listen to him either.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

Black Lives Matter mission statement:

mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes

What other people read into it is immaterial.
Taking an argument to an absurd level is a common technique one Peterson uses as well. Of course there are blog posts on all types of issues claiming they are BLM is not true.

Where does the mission statement mention 'equality' - it doesn't.

If you read up on blm - you will see they are pushing for equity which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Whether Peterson does so or otherwise in your opinion remains largely irrelevant. But yes recent thinking on equity is that it is perhaps not everything its cracked up to be. I believe the two links are pro blm. The last one outlines the problem of solely relying 'equity' as a means of achieving change

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

Where does the mission statement mention 'equality' - it doesn't.

If you read up on blm - you will see they are pushing for equity which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Whether Peterson does so or otherwise in your opinion remains largely irrelevant. But yes recent thinking on equity is that it is perhaps not everything its cracked up to be. I believe that last link is pro blm but against solely relying on 'equity' as a means of achieving change

Where does it say equity?

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Black Lives Matter mission statement:

mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes

Great. And we are in agreement that white supremacists are bad and there are laws and provisions in place to ensure equality.

Did you support them when they wanted to disrupt the nuclear family too?

And do you think the police actions towards George Floyd was because he was black or because he was off his face? Is it your opinion that white people are not mistreated by policemen?

If there is systemic racism, how do you reconcile that with the presidency of Barack Obama? Surely the bad whites would have stopped that happening?

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

Where does it say equity?

I didnt quote the mission statement - you did. I made no such claim btw.

What I said was:

If you read up on blm - you will see they are pushing for equity which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

I'd suggest you do a bit more reading rather than simply presuming things about the equality vs equity debate tbf.

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

I didnt quote the mission statement - you did. I made no such claim btw.

What I said was:



I'd suggest you do a bit more reading rather than simply presuming things tbf.

I will go with what they say themselves rather than what others say they want.

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

I will go with what they say themselves rather than what others say they want.

It was your own comment which suggested that the discussion by Petterson on the issue of equality was disingenuous.

It was pointed out that - that argument is incorrect. There is currently a huge divide in the issue of equality vs equity. With pro blm advocates increasingly in conflict over the issue.

You really need to do a bit more reseach on this before telling everyone else what to think tbf.

AllForIt

Overheal wrote: »

Do you have a source for that?

Here is a little more source, the contribution by Kemi Badenoch in full and the youtube auto generated captions.

https://pastebin.pl/view/18c5e92e#

our curriculum does not need decolonizing for the simple reason that

it is not colonized we should not apologize for the fact that british children primarily study the history of these islands and it goes without saying that the recent fad to decolonize maths decolonize engineering decolonize the sciences that we have seen across our universities to make race the defining principle of
what is studied is not just misguided but actively opposed to the fundamental purpose of

i want to speak about a dangerous trend in race relations that has come far too close to home to my life and this is the promotion of critical race theory an ideology that sees my blackness as victimhood and their whiteness as oppression i want to be absolutely clear this government stands unequivocally against critical race theory some schools have decided to openly support the anti-catalyte capitalist black lives matter group often fully aware that they have a statutory duty to be politically impartial

it is a political movement and what would be nice would be for members on the opposite side to condemn many of the actions that we see this political movement instead of pretending that it is a completely wholesome
anti-racist organization there is a lot of pernicious stuff that is being pushed and we stand against that we do not want to see teachers teaching their white pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt

Well, how refreshing.

It's a pity Dawn Butler wasn't in the chamber to listen to this response to Butlers's call for "decolonisation' of the national curriculum" because I would have loved to see the look on her face. It's good to see such robust opposition to this imported american nonsense especially coming from a black female MP.

Again, I have to ask 20 cent, are you a supporter of "positive" discrimination?

20Cent

gozunda wrote: »

It was your own comment which suggested that the discussion by Petterson on the issue of equality was disingenuous.

It was pointed out that - that argument is incorrect. There is currently a huge divide in the issue of equality vs equity. With pro blm advocates increasingly in conflict over the issue.

You really need to do a bit more reseach on this before telling everyone else what to think tbf.

Peterson will say equality of outcome then talk about how we all can't like the same music or have the same levels of happiness. An absurd exaggeration of what people mean when they talk about equality. Takes away from the real discussion. Black people in the US feel they are being mistreated and want it to stop.

nolivesmatter

20Cent wrote: »

You can tell Jordan Peterson fans a mile away, they use the same disingenuous arguments. For example if someone says equality is a good thing, Peterson will start going on about "equality of outcome" something totally different which is not being suggested by anyone. Like the post above did.

It seems you don't know what you're talking about.
"quality is a good thing" is an abstract idea that means almost nothing.
The typical case that Peterson argues is that equality of opportunity (everyone gets a fair shot) should be prioritized over equality of outcome (quotas for example based on things such as gender and race must be met - this damages equal opportunity).
No reasonable person disagrees with that.

And if you don't think people are trying to implement equality of outcome across society then you wrong. I've even seen gender quotas being implemented where I work.

Overheal

gozunda wrote: »

Where does the mission statement mention 'equality' - it doesn't.

If you read up on blm - you will see they are pushing for equity which is a different kettle of fish altogether.

Whether Peterson does so or otherwise in your opinion remains largely irrelevant. But yes recent thinking on equity is that it is perhaps not everything its cracked up to be. I believe the two links are pro blm. The last one outlines the problem of solely relying 'equity' as a means of achieving change

It doesn’t say equity either but you shoveled that in there eh

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Great. And we are in agreement that white supremacists are bad and there are laws and provisions in place to ensure equality.

Did you support them when they wanted to disrupt the nuclear family too?

And do you think the police actions towards George Floyd was because he was black or because he was off his face? Is it your opinion that white people are not mistreated by policemen?

If there is systemic racism, how do you reconcile that with the presidency of Barack Obama? Surely the bad whites would have stopped that happening?

Uhm they tried have you heard of voter suppression?

Obama is not proof racism doesn’t exist. Jesus wept.

There are laws but no eradication of racism. Equality in the law doesn’t exist while Qualified Immunity exists.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Uhm they tried have you heard of voter suppression?

Obama is not proof racism doesn’t exist. Jesus wept.

There are laws but no eradication of racism. Equality in the law doesn’t exist while Qualified Immunity exists.

What is your definition of qualified immunity that you want to cease to exist?

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is your definition of qualified immunity that you want to cease to exist?

It’s not my definition?

Why are you trying to personalize this argument? I’m not entertaining that sorry.

It’s not my definition and my opinion isn’t the issue here but the subject matter itself which is qualified immunity which if you need it explained to you it’s been covered in thread a lot if you need more help you can google it.

While qualified immunity exists we do not have equality, it is fundamentally antithetical to equality.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

It’s not my definition?

Why are you trying to personalize this argument? I’m not entertaining that sorry.

It’s not my definition and my opinion isn’t the issue here but the subject matter itself which is qualified immunity which if you need it explained to you it’s been covered in thread a lot if you need more help you can google it.

While qualified immunity exists we do not have equality, it is fundamentally antithetical to equality.

It was because I am trying to understand your perception of qualified immunity and why it should be removed.

I think it is a little more nuanced than your assertation that "While qualified immunity exists we do not have equality, it is fundamentally antithetical to equality." I don't believe that to be true and was wondering why you believe that.

If you don't want to discuss that, then absolutely fine.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It was because I am trying to understand your perception of qualified immunity and why it should be removed.

I think it is a little more nuanced than your assertation that "While qualified immunity exists we do not have equality, it is fundamentally antithetical to equality." I don't believe that to be true and was wondering why you believe that.

If you don't want to discuss that, then absolutely fine.

I don’t because it just sounds like you’re trying to gaslight me by supposing I have some special warped definition of QI. I don’t. So we will leave it there.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t because it just sounds like you’re trying to gaslight me by supposing I have some special warped definition of QI. I don’t. So we will leave it there.

No bother.

But I just want to absolutely deny and refute that there was any attempt of gaslighting and I do feel it is unfair to accuse me of such a thing by simply asking you to elaborate on a point on a discussion board.

But, as you wish, I am fine to leave it at that.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

But I just want to absolutely deny and refute that there was any attempt of gaslighting and I do feel it is unfair to accuse me of such a thing by simply asking you to elaborate on a point on a discussion board.

I too feel it's unfair to put words in my mouth suggesting I have a distorted version of QI in my world view. So we're at an impasse.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I too feel it's unfair to put words in my mouth suggesting I have a distorted version of QI in my world view. So we're at an impasse.

It's remarkable that you think I suggested that. I absolutely didn't. I asked what your definition of QI which you wanted to eradicate. People have many different perceptions of what things are. I just wanted to clarify.

Asking for clarification so as NOT to misrepresent you, is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting I did.