RugbyRebels

It's only about 50 years since the US gave up apartheid. The UK may be a bunch of closet racists outside London but we're a fuck of lot better than that lot.

morepork wrote:
I think you've been there in the past mate....hence the incredulity of it happening again here and now somewhere else. Fuck, NZ troops gunned down Samoans in Apia in 1929 after some spectacularly inept handling of health infrastructure. The fact that this shit is still happening in the USA should be proof positive that racial tension is still taught, and is a major factor in infrastructure shortcomings. The USA needs a leader different from the unmitigated fuckwit they have now. It's time to grow up, but the madness of the second amendment in this country needs balls, spine, and nuance to deal with, none of which the current administration possess.

Why don't you offer them your services poindexter? You're clearly wasted here.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

morepork wrote:
I think you've been there in the past mate....hence the incredulity of it happening again here and now somewhere else. Fuck, NZ troops gunned down Samoans in Apia in 1929 after some spectacularly inept handling of health infrastructure. The fact that this shit is still happening in the USA should be proof positive that racial tension is still taught, and is a major factor in infrastructure shortcomings. The USA needs a leader different from the unmitigated fuckwit they have now. It's time to grow up, but the madness of the second amendment in this country needs balls, spine, and nuance to deal with, none of which the current administration possess.

Why don't you offer them your services poindexter? You're clearly wasted here.

You are an idiot.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It's only about 50 years since the US gave up apartheid. The UK may be a bunch of closet racists outside London but we're a fuck of lot better than that lot.

Having lived in London and a few other places I don't know I've really observed a difference, though in all those places I'll have mostly mingled with the middle classes.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It's only about 50 years since the US gave up apartheid. The UK may be a bunch of closet racists outside London but we're a fuck of lot better than that lot.

Having lived in London and a few other places I don't know I've really observed a difference, though in all those places I'll have mostly mingled with the middle classes.

I really, really have. And for various reasons I'm quite a bit more likely to.

Stom wrote:So much of these issues, this racism, this violence, can be quashed with just a little bit of equality. The world has gone to shit with the lowering of corporation tax the world over, giant conglomerates sitting on billions of dollars of funds that could be used to help these people on the streets.

This. And a lot of equality would be even better.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:So much of these issues, this racism, this violence, can be quashed with just a little bit of equality. The world has gone to shit with the lowering of corporation tax the world over, giant conglomerates sitting on billions of dollars of funds that could be used to help these people on the streets.

This. And a lot of equality would be even better.

Maybe, only the world hasn't gone to poop since corp tax rates have dropped. There are still more people than at any point in history, both absolute and relative, having been raised from poverty.

So the world is conceivably still a bad place, but it's not like it left a good place to arrive at where it is today.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:So much of these issues, this racism, this violence, can be quashed with just a little bit of equality. The world has gone to shit with the lowering of corporation tax the world over, giant conglomerates sitting on billions of dollars of funds that could be used to help these people on the streets.

This. And a lot of equality would be even better.

Maybe, only the world hasn't gone to poop since corp tax rates have dropped. There are still more people than at any point in history, both absolute and relative, having been raised from poverty.

So the world is conceivably still a bad place, but it's not like it left a good place to arrive at where it is today.

A race to the bottom?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:It's only about 50 years since the US gave up apartheid. The UK may be a bunch of closet racists outside London but we're a fuck of lot better than that lot.

Having lived in London and a few other places I don't know I've really observed a difference, though in all those places I'll have mostly mingled with the middle classes.

I really, really have. And for various reasons I'm quite a bit more likely to.

See your problem, Digby, is that you've been mingling with the wrong classes. Euge wouldn't be seen dead mingling with the middle classes anywhere. He is through and through blue collar and only deals with working class legal stuff - like non-payment of child support, trying to fetch too many fags back through Luton on your way back from MaJorka and mid-week spousal abuse. The Yanks have feck-all on our working class when it comes to that sort of stuff.

And he still wears flares and kipper ties.

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:So much of these issues, this racism, this violence, can be quashed with just a little bit of equality. The world has gone to shit with the lowering of corporation tax the world over, giant conglomerates sitting on billions of dollars of funds that could be used to help these people on the streets.

This. And a lot of equality would be even better.

Maybe, only the world hasn't gone to poop since corp tax rates have dropped. There are still more people than at any point in history, both absolute and relative, having been raised from poverty.

So the world is conceivably still a bad place, but it's not like it left a good place to arrive at where it is today.

It's been a gradual thing... Just as the IMF say, if you want to take the view of actual economists over mine (which is completely fair).

It's possible to have a bad system/bad government and still get some things right. Here in Hungary Fidesz have made many good decisions since coming to power. Doesn't mean they've not been a bad government, and aren't getting progressively worse.

Most of the West's current ills can be traced directly back to the advent of theses neoliberal ideas on wealth and its (lack of) distribution.

I just watched Trainspotting: T2, and this quote from Irvine Welsh is quite telling...

What’s strange is that the left is now trying to eke out capitalism, while the right wants to destroy it.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:So much of these issues, this racism, this violence, can be quashed with just a little bit of equality. The world has gone to shit with the lowering of corporation tax the world over, giant conglomerates sitting on billions of dollars of funds that could be used to help these people on the streets.

This. And a lot of equality would be even better.

The pursuit of profit is war. It's an organism that feeds itself.

The thick leading the greedy.

I'd take the view that things are getting better, but with plenty of reversals along the way. The part that concerns me more than any other is the reliance on debt and just how leveraged so many institutions across the finance world are, I also don't like how debt has crossed into the retail markets and consumerism. Debt isn't the only problem, but still, on balance, I'd suggest things are improving albeit I'd hardly think everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds

Digby wrote:I'd take the view that things are getting better, but with plenty of reversals along the way. The part that concerns me more than any other is the reliance on debt and just how leveraged so many institutions across the finance world are, I also don't like how debt has crossed into the retail markets and consumerism. Debt isn't the only problem, but still, on balance, I'd suggest things are improving albeit I'd hardly think everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds

97% of the world's money is debt. What was it Voltaire said about fiat currency?

I don't know what the figures are on global wealth distribution, but if we take Uncle Sam's place as a benchmark, 1% of the population control 38% of private wealth.



Then there's the continued rape of the planet, ecosystems, biodiversity.....oh and offensive statues [very important that].

Offensive statues seem to be a beacon for a particular subsection of a particular demographic apparently blinded by the radiance of their combination of skin colour and religious preference (having both variables covers nicely anyone not conveniently slotting into this social legoland). I'm wondering if you could be a bit more specific in your social critique and perhaps offer up a rubric for classification that people with the magic combination of impaired executive function and belief in eugenics could use to justify the defense of a public monument dedicated to segregation? This would help a disabled section of society feel relevant. If possible, could you use words?

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Stom wrote:So much of these issues, this racism, this violence, can be quashed with just a little bit of equality. The world has gone to shit with the lowering of corporation tax the world over, giant conglomerates sitting on billions of dollars of funds that could be used to help these people on the streets.

This. And a lot of equality would be even better.

Maybe, only the world hasn't gone to poop since corp tax rates have dropped. There are still more people than at any point in history, both absolute and relative, having been raised from poverty.

So the world is conceivably still a bad place, but it's not like it left a good place to arrive at where it is today.

Is massive and increasing inequality a good thing or a bad thing? How about we try to make things better than they are?

A couple of hundred years ago we had all the time in the world to arse about with different systems. It was dreadful for most people, but - it's possible to argue - there was time to get it right with slow improvements.

Now, we don't have time. We're running out of or ruining too many things. We are taking irreversible steps. By the time people see (if they ever do) that maybe there's something other than grabbing 10 times more than your share, it may be too late - the world will be tipping into a series of disasters driven by shortages and environmental stress. Civilisations have collapsed before. This global civilisation is not immune.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: This. And a lot of equality would be even better.

Maybe, only the world hasn't gone to poop since corp tax rates have dropped. There are still more people than at any point in history, both absolute and relative, having been raised from poverty.

So the world is conceivably still a bad place, but it's not like it left a good place to arrive at where it is today.

Is massive and increasing inequality a good thing or a bad thing? How about we try to make things better than they are?

A couple of hundred years ago we had all the time in the world to arse about with different systems. It was dreadful for most people, but - it's possible to argue - there was time to get it right with slow improvements.

Now, we don't have time. We're running out of or ruining too many things. We are taking irreversible steps. By the time people see (if they ever do) that maybe there's something other than grabbing 10 times more than your share, it may be too late - the world will be tipping into a series of disasters driven by shortages and environmental stress. Civilisations have collapsed before. This global civilisation is not immune.

Myself I'm against the widening gap in equality, partly on grounds of immediate fairness, but also allowing the gap in income to so widen will in the end hurt society I fear. It also doesn't to me make economic sense to allow wealth to be stockpiled in a fashion that doesn't see it reinvested.

However whilst the gap has been growing, and for the last 20 odd years been growing at a rate not really seen in hundreds of years there is still there are less people on the lowest of incomes, and that's a very good thing. We've also either maintained or reduced the number in poverty (that varies depending on how you calculate it), so maybe no improvement (or maybe slight improvement) and that's meh to good.

Are we running out of time? I doubt it, it's even possible to suggest in the last decade the income inequality has reduced, but I suspect a lot of that would stem from falling stock markets 2008 onward, and that such correction will soon prove corrected. However the idea we're now living at a crux point in history is likely false, just as those who believe in Rapture so often seem convinced that not only is the Rapture true but that Jesus will return in their lifetime I'd posit that the notion we're taking irreversible steps places too much importance on our age, when really we're as insignificant (or significant if you want a more positive label) as those who came before

There are dangers of course, still widening levels of wealth may cause society to fracture, there's again the reliance on debt and just how leveraged the financial world is, there's the concern over politicians for decades taking short term decisions on health services, on welfare, on pensions and just pushing important decision down the line until one implodes like Greece (or worse), and there's will any have a job in another 50 years as tech changes the nature of employment over and over. But of course at any point in time it's easy to claim we're doomed, had you told people 200-300 years ago what % would be employed in mining, milling, agriculture and so on, then supposing they understood what percentages are they'd have thought we were doomed. At most I'd suggest we don't know what the future holds, we're better set than we've ever been to be successful, if we blow that, well we'll have had chances.

morepork wrote:Offensive statues seem to be a beacon for a particular subsection of a particular demographic apparently blinded by the radiance of their combination of skin colour and religious preference (having both variables covers nicely anyone not conveniently slotting into this social legoland). I'm wondering if you could be a bit more specific in your social critique and perhaps offer up a rubric for classification that people with the magic combination of impaired executive function and belief in eugenics could use to justify the defense of a public monument dedicated to segregation? This would help a disabled section of society feel relevant. If possible, could you use words?

Normally I don't waste my time corresponding with keyboard commandos, but I'm in a generous mood and shall grant thee this boon.

How on earth did you connect R.E Lee's statue with segregation?

Let's get down to brass tacks here:

Lee opposed secession. He resigned from the Union army after Virginia, his homeland, seceded from the union. Virginia was not amongst the original seven secession states. Ol' Dominion seceded after Lincoln proclaimed a rebellion, and that was after he re-provisioned Fort Sumter, which was manned by Union troops. Naturally enough, Johnny Reb wasn't too happy about this, and took the fort.

I'm assuming you know all this? Perhaps you don't, but let me ask you this: What would you do if your homeland was invaded by a hostile force?

Moreover, the removal of a statue that allegedly represents the subjugation of blacks, isn't going to suddenly turn the US into a utopia. I'm sure you've seen the stats on black on black/black on white crime, the percentages of blacks that constitute the inmates in federal penitentiaries, and various other facts and figures that would indicate how poor the social progression of blacks has been since the 1960s. Mind you whites aren't doing much better. I'd say that most ordinary people in the US struggle to service their debts, raise the childer, keep the missus happy etc. etc. Old whitey and his privileges eh? Like the gender wage gap, it's another myth perpetuated by a ultra liberal media who have a keen eye for the public's misinterpretation of statistics.

But getting back to your claim that Confederate monuments represent segregation. Let's say that you're right. In order to be consistent, you'd surely be throwing the same shapes about equestrian monuments to Union Generals; aside from owning slaves, and committing atrocities on Confederate soil, they brutally subjugated the native population. Curiously, you're silent on this issue. Perhaps it's next on your SJW shopping list of demands?

Now, a while back you were declaring that feminists et al had every right to march in protest against a democratically elected president. Strangely, that right doesn't apply to anyone who doesn't share your views.



If you really cared about the problems blacks face in the US, you wouldn't be here, would you? You'd be out in the field lobbying to establish science programs for black kids (it's usually black males that lack education) in disadvantaged areas.

There's enough hot air on t'inteweb, thank you very much. Feck off.

Vengeful Glutton wrote:

morepork wrote:Offensive statues seem to be a beacon for a particular subsection of a particular demographic apparently blinded by the radiance of their combination of skin colour and religious preference (having both variables covers nicely anyone not conveniently slotting into this social legoland). I'm wondering if you could be a bit more specific in your social critique and perhaps offer up a rubric for classification that people with the magic combination of impaired executive function and belief in eugenics could use to justify the defense of a public monument dedicated to segregation? This would help a disabled section of society feel relevant. If possible, could you use words?

Normally I don't waste my time corresponding with keyboard commandos, but I'm in a generous mood and shall grant thee this boon.

How on earth did you connect R.E Lee's statue with segregation?

Let's get down to brass tacks here:

Lee opposed secession. He resigned from the Union army after Virginia, his homeland, seceded from the union. Virginia was not amongst the original seven secession states. Ol' Dominion seceded after Lincoln proclaimed a rebellion, and that was after he re-provisioned Fort Sumter, which was manned by Union troops. Naturally enough, Johnny Reb wasn't too happy about this, and took the fort.

I'm assuming you know all this? Perhaps you don't, but let me ask you this: What would you do if your homeland was invaded by a hostile force?

Moreover, the removal of a statue that allegedly represents the subjugation of blacks, isn't going to suddenly turn the US into a utopia. I'm sure you've seen the stats on black on black/black on white crime, the percentages of blacks that constitute the inmates in federal penitentiaries, and various other facts and figures that would indicate how poor the social progression of blacks has been since the 1960s. Mind you whites aren't doing much better. I'd say that most ordinary people in the US struggle to service their debts, raise the childer, keep the missus happy etc. etc. Old whitey and his privileges eh? Like the gender wage gap, it's another myth perpetuated by a ultra liberal media who have a keen eye for the public's misinterpretation of statistics.

But getting back to your claim that Confederate monuments represent segregation. Let's say that you're right. In order to be consistent, you'd surely be throwing the same shapes about equestrian monuments to Union Generals; aside from owning slaves, and committing atrocities on Confederate soil, they brutally subjugated the native population. Curiously, you're silent on this issue. Perhaps it's next on your SJW shopping list of demands?

Now, a while back you were declaring that feminists et al had every right to march in protest against a democratically elected president. Strangely, that right doesn't apply to anyone who doesn't share your views.



If you really cared about the problems blacks face in the US, you wouldn't be here, would you? You'd be out in the field lobbying to establish science programs for black kids (it's usually black males that lack education) in disadvantaged areas.

There's enough hot air on t'inteweb, thank you very much. Feck off.

Thank you for your magnanimity. What would I do if my homeland were invaded by a hostile force? Why, resist, of course. The issue of native Americans is an important one, but how that issue could be legitimately used to deflect from injustice visited upon another sector of society is not immediately apparent to me. I'm not silent on this issue so much as trying, albeit without success, to obtain acknowledgement of injustice suffered by black people. Is this really so difficult a concept for you to process? Lee supported reconstitution but opposed giving black people the right to vote. Your version of Lee's legacy is almost cliche in it's revisionism. It is part of the same revisionism that insists slavery was not a major factor in the civil war. This just does not stand up to scrutiny. This revisionism is why Lee is a beacon for white supremacism arguments by proponents of said revisionism who are too cowardly to stand by their race-based agenda. On the one hand you dismiss the absolute handicap of slavery as a contributing factor in inequality, and on the other use the race card to justify, in your usual obtuse way, that whites suffer from inequality also. When presenting an hypothesis, there is a requirement to offer a founding metric amenable to controlled variables in order that the audience my either accept or reject the null hypothesis. If your foundation is inequality, how could you possibly discount racism, and more specifically in the context of this dialogue, slavery, as an influential variable? Likewise, if your selected data regarding crime rates based on race chooses to ignore the same variable, how is that data to be considered valid? Your argument makes sense only if presented as an hypothesis for the inequality suffered by a discrete demographic as unduly influenced by the presence of another demographic based on race. This is catastrophically afflicted with immediately obvious bias. Is this the hypothesis you are proposing? Why don't you get off the fence and offer an hypothesis that truly reflects your beliefs? Take a stand. Does hot air scare you?

morepork wrote:

Thank you for your magnanimity. What would I do if my homeland were invaded by a hostile force? Why, resist, of course. The issue of native Americans is an important one, but how that issue could be legitimately used to deflect from injustice visited upon another sector of society is not immediately apparent to me. I'm not silent on this issue so much as trying, albeit without success, to obtain acknowledgement of injustice suffered by black people. Is this really so difficult a concept for you to process? Lee supported reconstitution but opposed giving black people the right to vote. Your version of Lee's legacy is almost cliche in it's revisionism. It is part of the same revisionism that insists slavery was not a major factor in the civil war. This just does not stand up to scrutiny. This revisionism is why Lee is a beacon for white supremacism arguments by proponents of said revisionism who are too cowardly to stand by their race-based agenda. On the one hand you dismiss the absolute handicap of slavery as a contributing factor in inequality, and on the other use the race card to justify, in your usual obtuse way, that whites suffer from inequality also. When presenting an hypothesis, there is a requirement to offer a founding metric amenable to controlled variables in order that the audience my either accept or reject the null hypothesis. If your foundation is inequality, how could you possibly discount racism, and more specifically in the context of this dialogue, slavery, as an influential variable? Likewise, if your selected data regarding crime rates based on race chooses to ignore the same variable, how is that data to be considered valid? Your argument makes sense only if presented as an hypothesis for the inequality suffered by a discrete demographic as unduly influenced by the presence of another demographic based on race. This is catastrophically afflicted with immediately obvious bias. Is this the hypothesis you are proposing? Why don't you get off the fence and offer an hypothesis that truly reflects your beliefs? Take a stand. Does hot air scare you?

It has been highlighted to emphasise the inconsistencies in your argument(s). Your SJW-ism is clearly the a la carte variety: If you're demanding the removal of Lee's statue because it represents "segregation", "inequality" *insert caterwauling here* then logically you'd conclude that monuments to Phil Sheridan, William Tecumseh Sherman and arguably even George Washington (a Slave holder) should also be consigned to the historical dustbin. You could even push it further, and demand the American flag be denuded of its stars and stripes, and coloured pink to suit whatever it is you're having with your cheerios. Where do you draw the line? Eventually your antifa friends will be demanding that books be burned "because they don't conform with liberal cultural norms..." Of course that will give the extreme right even more ammunition, and then we could have ourselves a Turner's Diaries scenario.

You're more than welcome to read any history of the war between the states, and you'll find that the summary I've outlined to you is accurate. I'm afraid it's not revisionism. It's historical fact. Lee himself recognised that institutionalised slavery was a "political and moral evil". If anyone is attempting to revise history it's you: Lee is a symbol of segregation? Hardly. He was a man of his times.

Is his statue being used by extremists to further their aims, assuage boredom perhaps, maybe even act as the unwitting pawns of some devious plutocrats? Absolutely, and it's not just one side whose behaviour is repugnant.

Your willingness to accept sanitised historical accounts of "honest Abe" is akin to a child's belief in fairy tales/Santy Claus. For someone who prides himself on means of scientific inquiry I'm appalled that you'd parrot trite factoids about Lincoln, without even attempting to verify any of them. Looky here: Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, over ruled SCOTUS's decision that the suspension was unconstitutional, introduced income tax to fund the war effort, introduced conscription, had Clement Vallandigham deported for disagreeing with him, and imprisoned most of the Maryland state legislature. Here's what he had to say about negro equality:

"Negro equality! Fudge!! How long, in the government of a God, great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagougeism as this. "



I think we need to demolish the monument to Uncle Abe, don't you?

If there were a march lobbying for the equality of cats and dogs, you'd be on t'interweb shouting down anyone who dared question it. You're here to vent spleen. Social Justice Warrior? Nah. Professional contrarian. Oh yeahhhhhhh!

Jesus Christ.

Christ on a bike!

Sweet Titty-Fucking Christ.