Middle

[quilp]

With your staid mindset debate is impossible. You've already made your mind up missus. 

[P.K.]

23 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

So can you read Mr Peters mind then.

I disagree with your second paragraph  I think it is perfectly possible to disagree with elements of BLM without being accused of being racist. There are elements I do not agree with but I think that it is also important to distinguish between the BLM social movement which in effect is just a demonstration against prejudice and the BLM Global Network Foundation. If you seek to discredit the social movement by stating that by supporting BLM you are supporting the latter or that you cannot support BLM because has extreme Marxist believes etc then I few you as racist as you appear to be looking to be able to interpret in a way that means so you can try and discredit people who wish to demonstrate against prejudice against black people. If you try and argue that white lives or all lives also matter then again I view you as racist as you are clearly trying to discredit BLM by interpreting it as meaning only black lives matter. If you argue against white prejudice simply because many white people may not be or feel advantaged then again I view you as racist as it is deliberately seeking to discredit the issue by deliberately misrepresenting what white prejudice means. I believe SP has done all of the above.

If somebody is deliberately misrepresenting a matter it can only be because they do not understand fully in which case it would be a good idea to learn a bit more about the matter, or because they do understand but want to deliberately misrepresent to discredit. If you are doing that re BLM, white prejudice etc that comes across to me as being pretty racist.  Suggesting that somebody is doing because they do not understand appears to be being generous as the alternative is you are holding the views because you are racist.

SP's comment that he would not take the knee because BLM supported George Floyd pretty clearly demonstrated to me that he wants to find any slightest pretext to try and BLM. Yes George Floyd might have been a criminal, arrested and appropriately punished but that does not alter the message that he was treated like he was purely because he was black and a white guy in the same situation differently. SP appears not to want to recognise that. I look forward to SP saying he no longer supports the police because Sarah Everard's was a policeman.

If you view racists purely as those who wave bananas as players at football matches to tell people they view as non white British people to go home then SP is not racist. That is not how I define a racist and SP's comment lead me to the view I have of him. You obviously disagree.

People like SP, in my view, know exactly what they are saying and when pulled up play the victim or try and hide behind phrases such as being anti-woke to try and make it seem there views are not what they are rather than stand up and be honest. 

More turgid verbiage.

I do not have to read Mr Peters' mind as we go out for a beer every now and again.

I am only interested in the BLM movement on the IOM so I CBA to get into a debate about whether Chauvin knelt on his neck because he was black or if it was a tactic he used on others.

Whether or not you think it is perfectly possible to disagree with elements of BLM without being accused of being racist does not fit the facts of the matter. What I posted is the experience of dealing with them on the IOM. Clearly you have not.

As to taking a knee I posted this previously:

On 9/27/2021 at 8:40 AM, P.K. said:

I personally don't believe in pointless symbolism. I go to church but I never go up for communion because I know a bit of wafer and a swig of cheap, nasty, watered-down wine is never going to make me a better christian! But I understand why the Ingerland football team take the knee. Some of their teamies are subjected to ugly, brainless, racial abuse on what seems to be a depressingly regular basis. So good for them for sending out a clear, unambiguous message about their team cohesion. However I don't have these issues to contend with so it's unlikely I will ever 'take a knee' so to speak. Especially as you get older it becomes harder and harder to get back up again.

I support a worthy cause like BLM. However I have nothing but contempt for those who tried to kipper Stu. The cause is worthy of my support. They are not and never will be...

Brevity is best.

[Lost Login]

23 minutes ago, quilp said:

With your staid mindset debate is impossible. You've already made your mind up missus. 

And since when have racists had open minds. Nick Griffin and the BNP always denied they were in any way racist. I am pretty sure the EDL and Tommy Robinson would argue likewise and that they are purely being patriotic.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Lost Login

[The Voice of Reason]

21 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

And since when have racists had open minds. Nick Griffin and the BNP always denied they were in any way racist. I am pretty sure the EDL and Tommy Robinson would argue likewise and that they are purely being patriotic.

Well we all know Nick Griffin,BNP, EDL and Tommy Robinson are racists by any definition, whether they deny it or not.

So what’s your point?

[Lost Login]

9 minutes ago, P.K. said:

More turgid verbiage.

I do not have to read Mr Peters' mind as we go out for a beer every now and again.

I am only interested in the BLM movement on the IOM so I CBA to get into a debate about whether Chauvin knelt on his neck because he was black or if it was a tactic he used on others.

Whether or not you think it is perfectly possible to disagree with elements of BLM without being accused of being racist does not fit the facts of the matter. What I posted is the experience of dealing with them on the IOM. Clearly you have not.

As to taking a knee I posted this previously:

Brevity is best.

Well we just have to disagree re SP as I both expect we both expected at the outset. SP has used the "all lives matter point" and the "I've had no more privilege than you" argument which both seek to undermine the general racial discrimination point of BLM and White Prejudice. I actually think that Barnardos cover white privilege well https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/white-privilege-guide-for-parents

I have long admitted I was never a great fan of SP on the radio. Fine at playing music but a poor choice to host a current affairs phone in. By his own admission he was not a journalist and when his hours were cut he just rocked up to the studio and discovered what the topic was. He never gave the impression that he had a strong interest in politics, current and world affairs or that he had a particularly enquiring mind. He appeared perfectly happy to simply except this at face value. A good host of a current affairs program should be able to be the devils advocate on both sides a role SP appeared unsuited for and for that reason I often felt a bit sorry for SP when he got into the odd bit of trouble.

Re BLM locally I think that evening there was a good debate to be had on whether if we had a problem with racism on the Isle of Man whether a march re BLM was the best way to raise the issue. Would it simply be seen as a copycat gesture in respect of a USA issue. When you read the transcript I think that might have been what SP was trying to get to but having posted about all lives matter and then not appearing to understand white prejudice he blew it on the night. Fair enough we all get things wrong but  doubling down on it afterwards etc is when I basically thought that SP was still stuck in the past. Sorry for being Ageist.

 

[Lost Login]

16 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Well we all know Nick Griffin,BNP, EDL and Tommy Robinson are racists by any definition, whether they deny it or not.

So what’s your point?

Not by their definition they are not. You can see that as the point if you wish i.e. that either side in the racism, sexism argument have a completely different view as to what racism or sexism actually is.   

I actually think that virtually nobody can claim to be totally non racist. I certainly could not claim to be. I try and avoid acting on them but my upbringing etc has led me to have some stereotypical views in respect of different races just like if I saw a skinhead in Dr Martins with tattoos, piercings etc I would jump to a conclusion. 

[The Voice of Reason]

37 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

 

I actually think that virtually nobody can claim to be totally non racist. I certainly could not claim to be. I try and avoid acting on them but my upbringing etc has led me to have some stereotypical views in respect of different races just like if I saw a skinhead in Dr Martins with tattoos, piercings etc I would jump to a conclusion. 

When you say that you try and avoid acting on them I’m not sure what you mean. I’m sure you don’t have an impulse to punch someone of a different colour so what would such acting on involve?

The Dr Martin shod skinhead. Yes sometimes when presented with someone a bit different ( a Goth perhaps) the image can sometimes be startling because it’s outside what you would normally expect to see. So what ? Doesn’t really matter what conclusion you jump to. It matters that you don’t discriminate against them

 

[Barlow]

On 9/29/2021 at 1:40 PM, Keiran Hannifin said:

And yes, a touch pedantic. Dare I say, even snobbish. Language experts mostly believe that if what you're intending to communicate is clear through context, grammar and misspellings are a minor detail. 

Written language is about communicating a point, not organising characters in the correct order.

 

I'm tempted to agree with you, but I won't here. You are (ok, you were) positioning yourself for a job as a Legislator.

Of which there is the sexy side of traipsing up Tynwald Hill, talking stuff in the House of Keys, and posh buffets and that. But there is also the mundane trawling through and voting on legislation (clause by clause) with suggestions for amendments etc. Verbal and written dexterity are key. 

Although if an MHK wants to get on and not show themselves up, they will learn to stuff all that bollox and just vote "Aye" with the Government and keep their mouth shut. Which the vast majority are quite willing to do. It's so, so much easier.

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

Re BLM locally I think that evening there was a good debate to be had on whether if we had a problem with racism on the Isle of Man whether a march re BLM was the best way to raise the issue. Would it simply be seen as a copycat gesture in respect of a USA issue. When you read the transcript I think that might have been what SP was trying to get to but having posted about all lives matter and then not appearing to understand white prejudice he blew it on the night. Fair enough we all get things wrong but  doubling down on it afterwards etc is when I basically thought that SP was still stuck in the past. Sorry for being Ageist.

You are quite right that nobody is likely to admit they are a racist. So is there a problem with racism on the island? I'm unaware of anyone being pilloried for it and I'm sure it would have made the usual outlets if it had happened. So that makes it a bit tricky for you to answer the question I posed to you on how much benefit has come from the symbolism?

I suspect the comeovers look down on us manx but that's not the same as being racist.

[quilp]

10 minutes ago, Barlow said:

I'm tempted to agree with you, but I won't here. You are (ok, you were) positioning yourself for a job as a Legislator.

Of which there is the sexy side of traipsing up Tynwald Hill, talking stuff in the House of Keys, and posh buffets and that. But there is also the mundane trawling through and voting on legislation (clause by clause) with suggestions for amendments etc. Verbal and written dexterity are key. 

Although if an MHK wants to get on and not show themselves up, they will learn to stuff all that bollox and just vote "Aye" with the Government and keep their mouth shut. Which the vast majority are quite willing to do. It's so, so much easier.

Is this ongoing because Kieran used, "alot" instead of 'a lot'? 

[Barlow]

Yes.

Sorry.

[Ramseyboi]

It is irrelevant but I am confused by the Keeran Kieran thing?  What’s the deal there?

[wrighty]

9 minutes ago, Ramseyboi said:

It is irrelevant but I am confused by the Keeran Kieran thing?  What’s the deal there?

Or Keiran even. Which is the correct spelling. 

[Ramseyboi]

2 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Or Keiran even. Which is the correct spelling. 

Like I said.  Confusing, and what is the purpose?

[Ramseyboi]