Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
A culture war over a statue of a bloke naebody heard of before today? Haway man.
How many people had heard of Alfred Dreyfus before there was a massive culture war over him?
If I say no ones heard of him now, am I falling for the joke?
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
A culture war over a statue of a bloke naebody heard of before today? Haway man.
How many people had heard of Alfred Dreyfus before there was a massive culture war over him?
Haway man again. It's a statue. No one died today.
Only perhaps vicariously via Covid-19 in a couple weeks.
Which is a far more pertinent point. I wholeheartedly condemn the huge gatherings for their selfish threat to the nation's health. The statue is a convenient red herring for both sides.
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
A culture war over a statue of a bloke naebody heard of before today? Haway man.
How many people had heard of Alfred Dreyfus before there was a massive culture war over him?
Haway man again. It's a statue. No one died today.
Only perhaps vicariously via Covid-19 in a couple weeks.
Which is a far more pertinent point. I wholeheartedly condemn the huge gatherings for their selfish threat to the nation's health. The statue is a convenient red herring for both sides.
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
It is, though, criminal damage and hopefully the main perpetrators are found and prosecuted.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
Those saying well Big Dom caused this....if people haven't got a clue who Lincoln was and why he is important when going on a sodding march to protest injustice rooted in the evils of slavery, chances they are making decisions based on the actions of a little know adviser...
Not sure why there'd be a culture war over a slaver. Who is so invested in the slaver that they'll take part in a culture war on a pro slaver side?
Well. Plenty seem mighty aggrieved.
Oh diddums.
The people who acted were aggrieved too. That's why they acted.
The kids were having a great day out tearing a city centre up cos it looks good on Insta and encouraged by Twitter, more likely.
And if the kids did the wrong thing it can be reversed. The statue can be put back up if people wish to say they stand behind having slavers statues up. Their choice.
People are acting as if protests like this are irreversible.
Those saying well Big Dom caused this....if people haven't got a clue who Lincoln was and why he is important when going on a sodding march to protest injustice rooted in the evils of slavery, chances they are making decisions based on the actions of a little know adviser...
You do realise this is a spoof account, I suppose?
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brave woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of bored middle class lefty students.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Those saying well Big Dom caused this....if people haven't got a clue who Lincoln was and why he is important when going on a sodding march to protest injustice rooted in the evils of slavery, chances they are making decisions based on the actions of a little know adviser...
You do realise this is a spoof account, I suppose?
Of course I know, I was pointing that protesters really did vandalise that statue...the one to the bloke who freed the slaves and was assassinated because of it.
Obviously during his lifetime did also did some stuff now considered non-PC, so he gets cancelled anyway.
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Exactly, all this will have done is entrenched division, which is arguably what some want.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Racists digging in shows them up. What normal people who aren't racists do matters though. A lot of people are talking about racism etc who weren't previously.
It isn't good enough that good people do nothing.
The atrocities we are seeing in American Police on a far too regular basis aren't because ever cop is a racist. But the bad apples aren't stood up to by their colleagues.
Same too often in normal life here too. If people feel uncomfortable today then oh well. Protests are designed to get attention. Nobody was hurt by a statue coming down.
The New York Times' opinion editor has resigned amid outrage over a piece by a Republican senator calling for military force to be used to quell protesters.
James Bennet stepped down after Senator Tom Cotton's article, entitled "Send in the Troops", caused revolt among the newspaper's journalists and readers.
It backed Donald Trump's threat to use troops against anti-racism protesters.
The newspaper had initially stood by the publication but then said the article "did not meet" its standards.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
Seriously, you are trying to equate those 2 actions?
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Exactly, all this will have done is entrenched division, which is arguably what some want.
If the only way to stand up to racism is to entrench division then entrenching division is the right thing to do.
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Maybe they judged it to be not important?
By todays new standards, New Labour clearly were a load of right wing racists.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brave woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of bored middle class lefty students.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Do you follow a lot of borderline racists on social media?
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Maybe they judged it to be not important?
By todays new standards, New Labour clearly were a load of right wing racists.
Standards change. We don't have the same standards as we had even 20 years ago.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Racists digging in shows them up. What normal people who aren't racists do matters though. A lot of people are talking about racism etc who weren't previously.
It isn't good enough that good people do nothing.
The atrocities we are seeing in American Police on a far too regular basis aren't because ever cop is a racist. But the bad apples aren't stood up to by their colleagues.
Same too often in normal life here too. If people feel uncomfortable today then oh well. Protests are designed to get attention. Nobody was hurt by a statue coming down.
27 police officers yesterday hurt, one with a punctured lung. Still, the BBC said it was "mainly peaceful" so that's okay.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Racists digging in shows them up. What normal people who aren't racists do matters though. A lot of people are talking about racism etc who weren't previously.
It isn't good enough that good people do nothing.
The atrocities we are seeing in American Police on a far too regular basis aren't because ever cop is a racist. But the bad apples aren't stood up to by their colleagues.
Same too often in normal life here too. If people feel uncomfortable today then oh well. Protests are designed to get attention. Nobody was hurt by a statue coming down.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Racists digging in shows them up. What normal people who aren't racists do matters though. A lot of people are talking about racism etc who weren't previously.
It isn't good enough that good people do nothing.
The atrocities we are seeing in American Police on a far too regular basis aren't because ever cop is a racist. But the bad apples aren't stood up to by their colleagues.
Same too often in normal life here too. If people feel uncomfortable today then oh well. Protests are designed to get attention. Nobody was hurt by a statue coming down.
27 police officers yesterday hurt, one with a punctured lung. Still, the BBC said it was "mainly peaceful" so that's okay.
Violence is wrong. All those engaged in violence need prosecuting.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Exactly, all this will have done is entrenched division, which is arguably what some want.
If the only way to stand up to racism is to entrench division then entrenching division is the right thing to do.
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Maybe they judged it to be not important?
By todays new standards, New Labour clearly were a load of right wing racists.
Standards change. We don't have the same standards as we had even 20 years ago.
Good thing too.
There are videos of black British people in the late 1990s saying that racism hardly exists in the UK, and they're happy to be living in such a post-racial society. I don't think they're suffering from so-called "false consciousness". The late 1990s was a very optimistic time for many people, particularly ethnic minorities. It's difficult to believe things are actually worse now than they were then.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brave woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of bored middle class lefty students.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Do you follow a lot of borderline racists on social media?
Judging by my Facebook feed it seems I do. That surely must have been clear, how would I know otherwise?
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Maybe they judged it to be not important?
By todays new standards, New Labour clearly were a load of right wing racists.
Standards change. We don't have the same standards as we had even 20 years ago.
Good thing too.
There are videos of black British people in the late 1990s saying that racism hardly exists in the UK, and they're happy to be living in such a post-racial society. I don't think they're suffering from so-called "false consciousness". The late 1990s was a very optimistic time for many people, particularly ethnic minorities. It's difficult to believe things are actually worse now than they were then.
They're not. But there's this thing called Twitter.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Racists digging in shows them up. What normal people who aren't racists do matters though. A lot of people are talking about racism etc who weren't previously.
It isn't good enough that good people do nothing.
The atrocities we are seeing in American Police on a far too regular basis aren't because ever cop is a racist. But the bad apples aren't stood up to by their colleagues.
Same too often in normal life here too. If people feel uncomfortable today then oh well. Protests are designed to get attention. Nobody was hurt by a statue coming down.
Are you popping along to join in anytime soon?
No. I don't think it's appropriate because of COVID. Plus I feel a bit old for protests and I don't like the way they get hijacked.
I'm happy to vote etc for my principles without needing to go on protests for them but I'm ok with others doing so if that's their choice.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
That was a small measure to deal with an outrageous infringement of civil liberties, by a brace woman directly affected.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of middle class lefties.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Racists digging in shows them up. What normal people who aren't racists do matters though. A lot of people are talking about racism etc who weren't previously.
It isn't good enough that good people do nothing.
The atrocities we are seeing in American Police on a far too regular basis aren't because ever cop is a racist. But the bad apples aren't stood up to by their colleagues.
Same too often in normal life here too. If people feel uncomfortable today then oh well. Protests are designed to get attention. Nobody was hurt by a statue coming down.
Are you popping along to join in anytime soon?
No. I don't think it's appropriate because of COVID. Plus I feel a bit old for protests and I don't like the way they get hijacked.
I'm happy to vote etc for my principles without needing to go on protests for them but I'm ok with others doing so if that's their choice.
On topic - a very interesting read. Instinctively it feels wrong, but I know the reality of American politics can be very different to what we see on our TV screens.
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Maybe they judged it to be not important?
By todays new standards, New Labour clearly were a load of right wing racists.
Standards change. We don't have the same standards as we had even 20 years ago.
Good thing too.
There are videos of black British people in the late 1990s saying that racism hardly exists in the UK, and they're happy to be living in such a post-racial society. I don't think they're suffering from so-called "false consciousness". The late 1990s was a very optimistic time for many people, particularly ethnic minorities. It's difficult to believe things are actually worse now than they were then.
Some in the 90s weren't facing racism while others were. Doesn't mean matters are worse or there's a false consciousness.
More than one thing can be right. One person saying they hardly face racism doesn't mean the same is true for everyone else ... Any more than one person saying they haven't been raped or abused doesn't mean others haven't.
Is there anyone else who couldnt really care much about the statues? Im more surprised how strong people feel on both sides. It doesnt seem either particularly important or clear cut either way whether it is right or wrong.
You think it's going to stop at statues?
Bless.
Oh no!
First they came for the statues of slavers.
Wait what follows?
Then the came for the slavers? Then they demanded equality? Then they tackled racism?
Oh the horror!
This trendy vicar phase of yours is achingly embarrassing. Truly mind-numbing posts defending the indefensible.
Pulling down statues of people that should be regarded as criminals is entirely defensible.
Why anyone would care more about statues than violence against people is beyond me.
Even when it is a criminal act? They didn't get what they wanted through the democratic process, so took things into their own hands.
Yes non violent criminal protests have been part of civil protests throughout all of human history.
Were the Suffragettes wrong for their illegal protests? Was the Boston Tea Party the wrong thing to do because it was illegal? Was Rosa Parks in the wrong for refusing to obey Jim Crow laws. Was Ghandi wrong to break laws in resistance.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
If a protest is illegal but you think it's the right thing to do then I think you should do what is right, even if it isn't legal. I am not a law and order obsessive I believe in what is right over what is legal.
If a majority is enforcing a bad law that you want to protest then do it. If the majority want to put the statue back up afterwards they can do so.
The difference is, we are a democracy with universal suffrage and a free media
To take your examples
1. The suffragettes were protesting for the vote, they did not have the vote, they had no choice 2. The Tea Party was literally a protest against Taxation minus Representation 3. The Jim Crow laws were overt discrimination by law 4. Gandhi was protesting an imperial conquest of his country
None of these examples have any relevance now. A campaign to get rid of the statue had many avenues to democratic success. Just one clever artwork might have done it. The resistance is feeble. He was a slaver.
Instead they tore it down in exultant anger and now we have the makings of a culture war. Well done. Moron
They're all relevant they're all illegal in their day but were part of changing the culture.
We still today have rampant discrimination and evil ongoing that matters far more than some civil disorder.
In a hundred years time pulling down statues of slavers may be viewed like Rosa Parks on a bus and the generations of the future will be confused why it took so long to remove slavers statues (which were only put up AFTER we knew slavery was wrong and it had been abolished).
Uh?
Which part went over your head or are you struggling with?
The part where you suddenly have the writing and reasoning capability of an averagely bright 7 year old.
Rosa Parks? Jeez. If she has any surviving family they should sue.
Rosa Parks acted illegally. So did those pulling down slavers statues.
The law is not the be all and end all. Never has been.
All the other things you mentioned achieved something tangible
What's going to change here apart from the statues not being there anymore?
Hopefully an end to the racism that they're symbolic of. That's what sparked these protests in the first place.
Absolutely no chance of that. It's made things 100% worse.
I doubt it. I think it's shining a spotlight on problems and will make the situation better. Pushing the Overton Window against systemic racism.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
Yeah maybe if students throw all the statues no one had heard of into the sea, racism will end.
It's no silver bullet. Neither was a young woman sitting on a different seat in a bus. Small measures can be meaningful.
Seriously, you are trying to equate those 2 actions?
Yes.
Either it's morally OK to break the law in non violent civil protests for issues that matter to you or it's not. I think it is.
Point of order: the May unemployment numbers look like they were actually 16.3%, not 13.3%. (See the note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labour Statistics release, that says there was likely a "misclassification error" without which the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported".
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
If I was an American I would be sorely tempted to vote for Trump, even though I detest him as a person and revile him as a politician
The alternative, amazingly, is quite possibly worse. A demented Biden leading a frenzied Democrat party which will achieve nothing because it is rotten with all this identity politics and crazed by racial strife, now playing out on the streets
Astonishingly, Trump begins to look like the safe option. He’s mad and bad, but there won’t be anarchy
Pity America
You've lost the plot now. Bonkers.
I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a Middle American looking at these riots and the strange madness attaching to them
This is a betting site, we are supposed to remove emotion
Biden is an exceptionally weak candidate (worse than Hillary I think), and his party is tainted by all this violence.
Trump has a better chance than the pollsters say, even if he is a piece of dreck
I don't think Biden is worse candidate than Hillary. He represents a more decent America without even speaking. I doubt he will make the same assumptions about having, say, Wisconsin in the bag that HRC did (overruling her husband incidentally).
I think Trump will win unfortunately.
To me he shows very clear signs of dementia, and also has a dubious record of groping women (at best). So he’s even worse than the dull, unlikeable, but competent Hillary
I wonder if he will even make it to November (tho, to be fair, I wonder the same about Trump)
It is surely the worst choice in a POTUS election ever?o
That's certainly true.
But I don't think doddery, (at least semi) senile Biden is as bad a candidate as Hillary. Indeed, his utter vacuousness is his greatest electoral asset.
1. The equestrian statue of Charles I, licenser and supporter of slave traders, that looks along Whitehall.
2. The statue of Charles II, charterer of the Royal African Company founded in 1660 shortly after the restoration, in Soho Square.
3. The statue of James II, the leading figure in the said Company who as Duke of York had his slaves branded "DY" and gave his name to the city and state of New York, in front of the National Gallery.
There's nothing stopping Boris Johnson from addressing the country tonight and saying we get the point, we're with you, there was no justification for slavery then and there's none for honouring slavers now, we'll take them down.
Why should we want to erase our history to appease the extreme left?
I was talking about ceasing to honour slavers, not "erasing history" whatever that might mean. There should be more knowledge and understanding of the past, not less.
The logical day for statues to have been taken down would have been 2nd May 1997, the day after Labour won a 179 seat majority. We clearly don't live in a logical world.
Maybe they judged it to be not important?
By todays new standards, New Labour clearly were a load of right wing racists.
Some of Blair's speeches sound quite Hiterlian in retrospect.
Point of order: the May unemployment numbers look like they were actually 16.3%, not 13.3%. (See the note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labour Statistics release, that says there was likely a "misclassification error" without which the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported".
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
Thanks for the analysis. I don't really trust the American opinion polls this time round, especially after they got it so wrong in 2016.
"They were taught and brought up there, The laws to abide. And that the country they lived in Had God on its side. "
"He's taught in his school From the start by the rule That the laws are with him To protect his white skin To keep up his hate So he never thinks straight 'Bout the shape that he's in But it ain't him to blame He's only a pawn in their game"
Point of order: the May unemployment numbers look like they were actually 16.3%, not 13.3%. (See the note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labour Statistics release, that says there was likely a "misclassification error" without which the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported".
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
Thanks for the analysis. I don't really trust the American opinion polls this time round, especially after they got it so wrong in 2016.
It's interesting.
The Senate match-ups for Arizona should really terrify Mr Ed. In a poll from this week, Fox News has McSally 13 points adrift of Mark Kelly. Now Kelly is popular (an ex-astronaut, no less), and McSally was a terrible candidate in 2018 who got gifted McCain's seat by the Governor. But 13 points is a massive margin. And if Kelly wins the Senate seat by that kind of margin, it's hard to see how Trump carries AZ.
Separately, in Colorado, I think all that the ethics probe does is make it likely that Hickenlooper is not the Democratic candidate. (The Primary is set for June 30th.) It is worth noting that the two most recent polls in the Colorado Senate race have the Democrats up 17 and 18 points.
Point of order: the May unemployment numbers look like they were actually 16.3%, not 13.3%. (See the note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labour Statistics release, that says there was likely a "misclassification error" without which the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported".
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
Thanks for the analysis. I don't really trust the American opinion polls this time round, especially after they got it so wrong in 2016.
My gut tells me that Trump will be trounced - hiding in the cellar, building 2 miles of fence to keep demonstrators away from the White House, tear gassing women and children so he can hold a bible upside down in front of a church he's never stepped foot in, claiming Friday was a great, great day for George Floyd. And the images of armed, armoured, and un-badged military personnel in the capital, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. In ordinary times, this would be a near wipe out in the electoral college - Mondale bad.
But ... but. My heart fears that somehow Trump's law and order schtick - however blatant, divisive and manipulative - might just swing things if protests persist for months and turn violent every now and then.
Key will be whether the young signing up on the electoral roll during protests actually vote. As Major Garrett perceptively noted, for this generation it is not just about 'the economy stupid'; their focus is on more lifestyle and values than that. In which case, whatever unexpected economic miracles come Trump's way, if these kids vote, he's toast.
Every time a political figure from the George W Bush era says they don't support Trump I think it probably helps rather than hinders him. We saw that just before that 2016 election when Romney and Bush both refused to support him.
If I was an American I would be sorely tempted to vote for Trump, even though I detest him as a person and revile him as a politician
The alternative, amazingly, is quite possibly worse. A demented Biden leading a frenzied Democrat party which will achieve nothing because it is rotten with all this identity politics and crazed by racial strife, now playing out on the streets
Astonishingly, Trump begins to look like the safe option. He’s mad and bad, but there won’t be anarchy
Pity America
You've lost the plot now. Bonkers.
I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a Middle American looking at these riots and the strange madness attaching to them
This is a betting site, we are supposed to remove emotion
Biden is an exceptionally weak candidate (worse than Hillary I think), and his party is tainted by all this violence.
Trump has a better chance than the pollsters say, even if he is a piece of dreck
I don't think Biden is worse candidate than Hillary. He represents a more decent America without even speaking. I doubt he will make the same assumptions about having, say, Wisconsin in the bag that HRC did (overruling her husband incidentally).
I think Trump will win unfortunately.
To me he shows very clear signs of dementia, and also has a dubious record of groping women (at best). So he’s even worse than the dull, unlikeable, but competent Hillary
I wonder if he will even make it to November (tho, to be fair, I wonder the same about Trump)
It is surely the worst choice in a POTUS election ever?o
That's certainly true.
But I don't think doddery, (at least semi) senile Biden is as bad a candidate as Hillary. Indeed, his utter vacuousness is his greatest electoral asset.
Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million or so. This idea she was a bad candidate might be overplayed. Against Biden, Trump has three distinct attack lines: dementia; women; whatever his son was up to in Ukraine. Sleepy, creepy and, erm, something else.
I take it the PB racists who object to the toppling of Colston also objected to the toppling of Saddam or Lenin?
What an utterly stupid and insulting comment. I’m surprised at you.
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
Point of order: the May unemployment numbers look like they were actually 16.3%, not 13.3%. (See the note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labour Statistics release, that says there was likely a "misclassification error" without which the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported".
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
Thanks for the analysis. I don't really trust the American opinion polls this time round, especially after they got it so wrong in 2016.
They were pretty close in 2016. The national averages were out by like 1% or 2% or something.
What was really wrong was the media narratives - basically the media only have two templates for elections, "nail-biting squeaker" and "foregone conclusion". Given the polling could have gone with either, but they picked the second one.
Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic. BY LAWRENCE FREEDMAN"
Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic. BY LAWRENCE FREEDMAN"
So what that piece says is all that crap in the Guardian about Big Dom and Herd Immunity was well Fake News. And that actually the wave had come much quicker than Eggheads realized.
Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic. BY LAWRENCE FREEDMAN"
So what that piece says is all that crap in the Guardian about Big Dom and Herd Immunity was well Fake News. And that actually the wave had come much quicker than Eggheads realized.
True. Depends whether you think the article itself is reliable. It's difficult to know which ones to believe when they're all saying different things.
Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic. BY LAWRENCE FREEDMAN"
That headline isn't really a great summary of what the article says. What it's describing as "scientific caution" is skepticism about the idea that it was possible in practice to suppress the disease. If it's not possible to suppress the disease, the only alternative is that it grows until you reach herd immunity. If you don't have a suppression strategy - and they didn't - you have a herd immunity strategy.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it.
One reason that dichotomy can be misleading is that the Bayesian priors have to come from somewhere, quite possibly from the frequentists. In this particular case, Freedman's analysis suggests the issue is that since there was not the testing capacity (or at least not the testing capability) any data would be at best limited.
The common theme through our response is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we cannot score 100 per cent on testing, or tracking, or facemasks, or PPE, then we may as well have none until we can have it all.
And I think we should be wary of letting the politicians off the hook for not stepping up to the plate when deficiencies were noted. Appointing a PPE tsar (Lord Deighton) made a difference but could have been done weeks earlier. The ventilator challenge is to politicians' credit.
Point of order: the May unemployment numbers look like they were actually 16.3%, not 13.3%. (See the note at the bottom of the Bureau of Labour Statistics release, that says there was likely a "misclassification error" without which the "overall unemployment rate would have been about 3 percentage points higher than reported".
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
Off topic, but what exactly is the point of registering as an independent?
I'm actually beginning to move away from a Trump win.
A good piece Mr. Ed but I think of the underlying themes, point 2 is irrelevant to most Americans. China would not feature in their top 20 problems right now. I don't think 3 is relevant either. The riots are big news if you happen to be there. For 95% Americans they won't even notice them. Which leaves, surprise surprise, the economy.
But you're right about 2016. Trump surfed a wave of discontent with the establishment. A feeling that your ordinary guy in the rust-belt was disenfranchised. Left out by a liberal privileged elite. Hilary Clinton really epitomised a lot of what they felt and maverick Trump played his hand well.
No more.
Trump is now the President. He's the one in charge. The fall guy.
And the biggest problem he has right now is that some significant figures in the GOP are either flatly refusing to support him or are actively backing Biden. We saw with Labour just what a killer blow that is. I'd argue it is THE killer blow.
If your own supporters start telling people to vote for the other guy then you've got BIG problems.
And the biggest problem he has right now is that some significant figures in the GOP are either flatly refusing to support him or are actively backing Biden. We saw with Labour just what a killer blow that is. I'd argue it is THE killer blow.
If your own supporters start telling people to vote for the other guy then you've got BIG problems.
That depends to what extent they associate Trump with mainstream Republicanism. I suspect there will be many who will vote for Trump who would not vote for Colin Powell, for example.
Trump is a brand apart.
Like BoZo. As I lifelong Conservative and Unionist I can't vote for that twat, or the Government he claims to lead. Plenty of other people did though.
I'm actually beginning to move away from a Trump win.
A good piece Mr. Ed but I think of the underlying themes, point 2 is irrelevant to most Americans. China would not feature in their top 20 problems right now. I don't think 3 is relevant either. The riots are big news if you happen to be there. For 95% Americans they won't even notice them. Which leaves, surprise surprise, the economy.
But you're right about 2016. Trump surfed a wave of discontent with the establishment. A feeling that your ordinary guy in the rust-belt was disenfranchised. Left out by a liberal privileged elite. Hilary Clinton really epitomised a lot of what they felt and maverick Trump played his hand well.
No more.
Trump is now the President. He's the one in charge. The fall guy.
And the biggest problem he has right now is that some significant figures in the GOP are either flatly refusing to support him or are actively backing Biden. We saw with Labour just what a killer blow that is. I'd argue it is THE killer blow.
If your own supporters start telling people to vote for the other guy then you've got BIG problems.
Relevant, from CNN:
Jeb Bush made this prediction about then front-runner Donald Trump: "He's a chaos candidate. And he'd be a chaos president." That quote proved deeply prescient.
Trump as president has seemed to welcome chaos, using his Twitter feed to lash out in 100 directions at once -- throwing churn in the water to see who responds and how. There's just so much -- a flurry of activity, with everything moving so
Which, for the most part, is how Trump wants it. He believes that he thrives in this chaos, that he is able to navigate it in ways others can't.
That chaos theory has taken a turn in recent weeks, however. The combined effect of the (still) ongoing coronavirus pandemic with the protests across the country has created a level of uncertainty that has people turning to the President for a stable response. And Trump's chaos characteristics are an insufficient balm for those worries.
An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday morning showed that 8 in 10 Americans believe that the country is out of control. Just 15% say it is under control.
That is bad news for Trump. No one likes to feel as though their world is rapidly spiraling out of control. And they like it even less when it feels as though their top elected leader is making that chaos worse rather than better.
And here's the problem for a chaos president: When people want stability and calm, you have no idea how to provide it to them.
And the biggest problem he has right now is that some significant figures in the GOP are either flatly refusing to support him or are actively backing Biden. We saw with Labour just what a killer blow that is. I'd argue it is THE killer blow.
If your own supporters start telling people to vote for the other guy then you've got BIG problems.
That depends to what extent they associate Trump with mainstream Republicanism. I suspect there will be many who will vote for Trump who would not vote for Colin Powell, for example.
Trump is a brand apart.
Like BoZo. As I lifelong Conservative and Unionist I can't vote for that twat, or the Government he claims to lead. Plenty of other people did though.
Big G showed us that it is possible to consume huge quantities of your own words if you come to believe that the alternative would be worse.
And the biggest problem he has right now is that some significant figures in the GOP are either flatly refusing to support him or are actively backing Biden. We saw with Labour just what a killer blow that is. I'd argue it is THE killer blow.
If your own supporters start telling people to vote for the other guy then you've got BIG problems.
That depends to what extent they associate Trump with mainstream Republicanism. I suspect there will be many who will vote for Trump who would not vote for Colin Powell, for example.
Trump is a brand apart.
Like BoZo. As I lifelong Conservative and Unionist I can't vote for that twat, or the Government he claims to lead. Plenty of other people did though.
The difference is that this time Trump is the incumbent and, notwithstanding your point about mainstream, I don't think it bites like it did in 2016.
Johnson was riding the Brexit bandwagon in the face of what he and Cummings successfully portrayed as the Remainer Parliament. The House of Commons had done just about everything possible to 'thwart the will of the people.' It was perfect for Johnson-Cummings.
Plus he was up against an unelectable Labour leader.
Trump this time only has himself to blame. I don't think lashing out at all and sundry, as he is, has the same traction.
Trump this time only has himself to blame. I don't think lashing out at all and sundry, as he is, has the same traction.
He seems to be blaming Democrat Governors and Mayors for the most part
Yes indeed. Sorry, what I meant was that this time around his blame game won't have the same traction. I don't think so anyway.
Ultimately in 2020 the buck stops with him. In 2016 he was the outsider. In 2020 he's the man in charge.
I'd be more confident about my view at the moment if the Democrats had put up a stronger candidate.
We will see. When significant forgives from his own party are actively campaigning against him as a pathological liar, it’s likely to blunt his attack lines. There is also this to consider: https://twitter.com/rosenbergerlm/status/1269285951567802370
Trump this time only has himself to blame. I don't think lashing out at all and sundry, as he is, has the same traction.
He seems to be blaming Democrat Governors and Mayors for the most part
Yes indeed. Sorry, what I meant was that this time around his blame game won't have the same traction. I don't think so anyway.
Ultimately in 2020 the buck stops with him. In 2016 he was the outsider. In 2020 he's the man in charge.
I'd be more confident about my view at the moment if the Democrats had put up a stronger candidate.
We will see. When significant forgives from his own party are actively campaigning against him as a pathological liar, it’s likely to blunt his attack lines. There is also this to consider: https://twitter.com/rosenbergerlm/status/1269285951567802370
From the article: ... Across the country, people are protesting the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery and demanding action against police violence and systemic racism. National media focuses on the big demonstrations and protest policing in major cities, but they have not picked up on a different phenomenon that may have major long-term consequences for politics. Protests over racism and #BlackLivesMatter are spreading across the country — including in small towns with deeply conservative politics. The scale of the protests is unprecedented Two of us, Chenoweth and Pressman, have been gathering data on protests across the country, while the other, Putnam, studies political mobilization in Pennsylvania. Our preliminary data shows that far more places have held protests already than held Women’s Marches in January 2017. That March occurred in 650 locations — and then had more participants than any other single-day demonstration in U.S. history. This time, few people had time for advance planning, amid a pandemic that has kept many Americans out of public spaces. And so the breadth of the protests is significant...
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it.
One reason that dichotomy can be misleading is that the Bayesian priors have to come from somewhere, quite possibly from the frequentists. In this particular case, Freedman's analysis suggests the issue is that since there was not the testing capacity (or at least not the testing capability) any data would be at best limited.
The common theme through our response is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we cannot score 100 per cent on testing, or tracking, or facemasks, or PPE, then we may as well have none until we can have it all.
And I think we should be wary of letting the politicians off the hook for not stepping up to the plate when deficiencies were noted. Appointing a PPE tsar (Lord Deighton) made a difference but could have been done weeks earlier. The ventilator challenge is to politicians' credit.
There is also the fact that they put of developing capacity (for example track and trace) until something else (testing) was fully in place. They didn’t seem to understand the idea of parallel development, or the importance (and huge cost) of time.
The ingrained political instinct of putting hard things off.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic. BY LAWRENCE FREEDMAN"
So what that piece says is all that crap in the Guardian about Big Dom and Herd Immunity was well Fake News. And that actually the wave had come much quicker than Eggheads realized.
It wasn't really crap. It's obvious that - whatever precise reasoning may or may not have been in their minds - the policy was to avoid suppressing the spread of the virus too much, so that there wouldn't be a second wave in the Winter. That was being said in public early on, before the strategy changed to suppression.
Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic. BY LAWRENCE FREEDMAN"
So what that piece says is all that crap in the Guardian about Big Dom and Herd Immunity was well Fake News. And that actually the wave had come much quicker than Eggheads realized.
It wasn't really crap. It's obvious that - whatever precise reasoning may or may not have been in their minds - the policy was to avoid suppressing the spread of the virus too much, so that there wouldn't be a second wave in the Winter. That was being said in public early on, before the strategy changed to suppression.
And it was an approach that never made sense, based entirely on a model, and going against the basics of pandemic response.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
@Philip_Thompson are you happy with the mob pulling down the Churchill statue in Parliament Square and throwing it in the Thames?
No. Churchill was a hero who led the country against fascism he didn't support it. If his statue was pulled down I'd want it to be taken out of the Thames, repaired if damaged and put back up.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Agreed. Churchill was undoubtedly a racist, but he also took a principled stand against the Nazis and led the country to a hard won victory in WW2. There is no comparison with Colston, whose only achievement was to make a load of money from the greatest crime in history. A statue of Churchill is not put up principally to celebrate his racist views. Whereas the Colson statue is put up to celebrate his role in the slave trade and the money he obtained from slavery, some of which he distributed more widely in his home town. In the US context it's like comparing George Washington with Jefferson Davis. Washington was a slave owner, but he also led his country to independence and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Whereas Davis led a rebellion to preserve slavery. A statue of Washington is not a statue celebrating slavery, a statue of Davis arguably is.
Trump this time only has himself to blame. I don't think lashing out at all and sundry, as he is, has the same traction.
He seems to be blaming Democrat Governors and Mayors for the most part
Yes indeed. Sorry, what I meant was that this time around his blame game won't have the same traction. I don't think so anyway.
Ultimately in 2020 the buck stops with him. In 2016 he was the outsider. In 2020 he's the man in charge.
I'd be more confident about my view at the moment if the Democrats had put up a stronger candidate.
We will see. When significant forgives from his own party are actively campaigning against him as a pathological liar, it’s likely to blunt his attack lines. There is also this to consider: https://twitter.com/rosenbergerlm/status/1269285951567802370
If protests have reached Punxsutawney then it sure isn’t groundhog,day.
So I cross-posted this comment from a guy called killerstorm back in March when we were trying to work out WTF was going on with the British response. Reading that New Statesman piece I think it fits what seems to have happened, where a quite diverse collection of (Asian) countries had shown how to suppress Covid without destroying your economy, but the British government just somehow decided it wasn't possible:
There's a deeper issue -- it seems like there's a systemic flaw in interpretation of scientific method.
Pretty much all science is based on statistics & probability theory, and there are basically two approaches:
* frequentist approach -- observe a large number of events and look for patterns. A basic example: if you tossed a coin 10000 times and got 5500 heads and 4500 tails, then probability of getting heads is 55%. * Bayesian approach -- start with a guesstimate and update probabilities as you discover more and more data. Both approaches give the same result if you observe a large number of events.
They differ when you don't have 100% complete information -- the Bayesian approach is to update our 'best estimate' continuously, while frequentists claim it's not possible to say anything until you observed a large number of events.
It's kinda a trade-off -- frequentist approach let's you to be more reliable and less prone to fluctuations. But it doesn't allow one to quickly react to new data.
So the problem is that a large number of scientists, doctors, bureaucrats etc. follow frequentist approach.
You can see this everywhere in COVID-19 response:
* "There are more deaths from flu than from coronavirus." -- This is true, if you look at death frequencies now, more people died from flu than from COVID-19. This isn't just what Trump says, but serious doctors make similar statements. * "We do not have 100% evidence that masks helps, so we assume that masks do not help". * "We never tried large-scale quarantines, so why would we assume they work?"
These people aren't stupid. They have been told, for years and years, to use only verified stuff. So until something is 100% verified they don't want to use it....
That’s a very good comment. But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly. The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
Yup, and also why you need the political leadership to be actually asking the right questions. Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt both understood what was going on, if one of those had been in charge they would almost certainly have said "why don't we think this would work here when it's working in [JP|SK|SG|TW]" and probably unearthed some mistaken assumption about those countries.
They didn’t have to go as far afield - Guernsey had 14day mandatory quarantine for all arrivals from mid-March, and from selected countries from early March. No new cases for 39 days and no known cases for two weeks.
Comments
And always a good idea to look after what we can do ourselves first.
The statue is a convenient red herring for both sides.
Pulling down a statue isn't the end of the world or final.
Turning a blind eye to problems doesn't make things better or make the problems go away.
https://twitter.com/daveylittle/status/1269736024642596865?s=20
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8396999/M6-closed-Midlands-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-WALK-carriageway.html
The people who acted were aggrieved too. That's why they acted.
People are acting as if protests like this are irreversible.
This is a load of vandalism that will make no tangible difference, if they're lucky, from a load of bored middle class lefty students.
As far as I have seen on social media, it has made borderline racists dig their heels in.
Obviously during his lifetime did also did some stuff now considered non-PC, so he gets cancelled anyway.
It isn't good enough that good people do nothing.
The atrocities we are seeing in American Police on a far too regular basis aren't because ever cop is a racist. But the bad apples aren't stood up to by their colleagues.
Same too often in normal life here too. If people feel uncomfortable today then oh well. Protests are designed to get attention. Nobody was hurt by a statue coming down.
James Bennet stepped down after Senator Tom Cotton's article, entitled "Send in the Troops", caused revolt among the newspaper's journalists and readers.
It backed Donald Trump's threat to use troops against anti-racism protesters.
The newspaper had initially stood by the publication but then said the article "did not meet" its standards.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52959856
But the one by the Taliban did? Or the one advocating that paedophilia isn't a crime?
The laws to abide.
And that the country they lived in
Had God on its side. "
Good thing too.
Mainly peaceful isn't 100% peaceful.
I'm happy to vote etc for my principles without needing to go on protests for them but I'm ok with others doing so if that's their choice.
https://twitter.com/mnrrntt/status/1269735170682302464?s=20
More than one thing can be right. One person saying they hardly face racism doesn't mean the same is true for everyone else ... Any more than one person saying they haven't been raped or abused doesn't mean others haven't.
Either it's morally OK to break the law in non violent civil protests for issues that matter to you or it's not. I think it is.
My morals matter more to me than the law.
Postal ballots and same-day registration appear to be the main complaints though I have not listened to his podcast. Gingrich seems to be more worried (or so he claims) about what might happen than what has happened.
https://www.newsweek.com/voter-fraud-realheres-how-democrats-want-steal-2020-election-opinion-1509180
So...
On topic.
I don't know for sure what will happen this time around. No-one does. There have been enough curve-balls that no-one saw coming (CV-19, the BLM riots, etc.) and we would be unwise to assume that things are going to now settle into a boring equilibrium.
There are things that could happen that could make President Trump a shoo in, there are things that could make Biden a near cert, and there are things that could lead to someone who isn't Biden or Trump being elected in November. (Either could catch CV-19, for example.)
That being said, Mr Ed is not persuasive, to me at least. Yes, the US unemployment rate has bounced back, but CV-19 case counts are rising (sometimes really quickly) in a lot of states. I fear that a lot of the US is going to see a second lockdown before November.
I would also caution to reading too much into special elections, not least because turnout levels are incredibly low. CA-25, for example, has more than 600,000 voters. That means turnout was sub-30%.
The primary response to Trump is perhaps the most persuasive of the arguments. But it's not that persuasive. The number of registered Republicans has dropped across the US. There are now, for the first time in history, more registered Independents than Registered Republicans. It's great that Trump is firing up those that remain... but the number that remain is only just above a quarter of voters now.
But I don't think doddery, (at least semi) senile Biden is as bad a candidate as Hillary. Indeed, his utter vacuousness is his greatest electoral asset.
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game"
The Senate match-ups for Arizona should really terrify Mr Ed. In a poll from this week, Fox News has McSally 13 points adrift of Mark Kelly. Now Kelly is popular (an ex-astronaut, no less), and McSally was a terrible candidate in 2018 who got gifted McCain's seat by the Governor. But 13 points is a massive margin. And if Kelly wins the Senate seat by that kind of margin, it's hard to see how Trump carries AZ.
Separately, in Colorado, I think all that the ethics probe does is make it likely that Hickenlooper is not the Democratic candidate. (The Primary is set for June 30th.) It is worth noting that the two most recent polls in the Colorado Senate race have the Democrats up 17 and 18 points.
But ... but. My heart fears that somehow Trump's law and order schtick - however blatant, divisive and manipulative - might just swing things if protests persist for months and turn violent every now and then.
Key will be whether the young signing up on the electoral roll during protests actually vote. As Major Garrett perceptively noted, for this generation it is not just about 'the economy stupid'; their focus is on more lifestyle and values than that. In which case, whatever unexpected economic miracles come Trump's way, if these kids vote, he's toast.
https://news.sky.com/story/colin-powell-calls-donald-trump-a-liar-and-says-he-will-vote-for-joe-biden-12002425
https://twitter.com/SteveGladman/status/1269665814065680391?s=19
There is a big - and important - difference between objecting to a statue being torn down because you approve of slavery and want to honour a slave trader (I can’t think of anyone on here who falls into that category but no doubt, if you have that evidence, you will name names rather than making blanket accusations of racism) and objecting because you don’t think decisions to remove statues should be made by mobs causing criminal damage and apparently contrary to the decision of the local community.
There is also a big - and important - difference between doing so in a democracy and doing so in an authoritarian state where there has been no democracy.
What was really wrong was the media narratives - basically the media only have two templates for elections, "nail-biting squeaker" and "foregone conclusion". Given the polling could have gone with either, but they picked the second one.
Sage minutes show that scientific caution, rather than a strategy of “herd immunity”, drove the UK’s slow response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
BY LAWRENCE FREEDMAN"
https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/coronavirus/2020/06/where-science-went-wrong
One reason that dichotomy can be misleading is that the Bayesian priors have to come from somewhere, quite possibly from the frequentists. In this particular case, Freedman's analysis suggests the issue is that since there was not the testing capacity (or at least not the testing capability) any data would be at best limited.
The common theme through our response is letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we cannot score 100 per cent on testing, or tracking, or facemasks, or PPE, then we may as well have none until we can have it all.
And I think we should be wary of letting the politicians off the hook for not stepping up to the plate when deficiencies were noted. Appointing a PPE tsar (Lord Deighton) made a difference but could have been done weeks earlier. The ventilator challenge is to politicians' credit.
A good piece Mr. Ed but I think of the underlying themes, point 2 is irrelevant to most Americans. China would not feature in their top 20 problems right now. I don't think 3 is relevant either. The riots are big news if you happen to be there. For 95% Americans they won't even notice them. Which leaves, surprise surprise, the economy.
But you're right about 2016. Trump surfed a wave of discontent with the establishment. A feeling that your ordinary guy in the rust-belt was disenfranchised. Left out by a liberal privileged elite. Hilary Clinton really epitomised a lot of what they felt and maverick Trump played his hand well.
No more.
Trump is now the President. He's the one in charge. The fall guy.
And the biggest problem he has right now is that some significant figures in the GOP are either flatly refusing to support him or are actively backing Biden. We saw with Labour just what a killer blow that is. I'd argue it is THE killer blow.
If your own supporters start telling people to vote for the other guy then you've got BIG problems.
Trump is a brand apart.
Like BoZo. As I lifelong Conservative and Unionist I can't vote for that twat, or the Government he claims to lead. Plenty of other people did though.
Jeb Bush made this prediction about then front-runner Donald Trump: "He's a chaos candidate. And he'd be a chaos president." That quote proved deeply prescient.
Trump as president has seemed to welcome chaos, using his Twitter feed to lash out in 100 directions at once -- throwing churn in the water to see who responds and how. There's just so much -- a flurry of activity, with everything moving so
Which, for the most part, is how Trump wants it. He believes that he thrives in this chaos, that he is able to navigate it in ways others can't.
That chaos theory has taken a turn in recent weeks, however. The combined effect of the (still) ongoing coronavirus pandemic with the protests across the country has created a level of uncertainty that has people turning to the President for a stable response. And Trump's chaos characteristics are an insufficient balm for those worries.
An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday morning showed that 8 in 10 Americans believe that the country is out of control. Just 15% say it is under control.
That is bad news for Trump. No one likes to feel as though their world is rapidly spiraling out of control. And they like it even less when it feels as though their top elected leader is making that chaos worse rather than better.
And here's the problem for a chaos president: When people want stability and calm, you have no idea how to provide it to them.
Is Biden really worse than Trump?
Johnson was riding the Brexit bandwagon in the face of what he and Cummings successfully portrayed as the Remainer Parliament. The House of Commons had done just about everything possible to 'thwart the will of the people.' It was perfect for Johnson-Cummings.
Plus he was up against an unelectable Labour leader.
Trump this time only has himself to blame. I don't think lashing out at all and sundry, as he is, has the same traction.
Ultimately in 2020 the buck stops with him. In 2016 he was the outsider. In 2020 he's the man in charge.
I'd be more confident about my view at the moment if the Democrats had put up a stronger candidate.
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article209137999/Demonstranten-werfen-Statue-von-Sklavenhaendler-in-Hafenbecken.html
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2020/06/07/l-espagne-rejoint-la-vague-de-manifestations-contre-le-racisme_6042059_3210.html
There is also this to consider:
https://twitter.com/rosenbergerlm/status/1269285951567802370
... Across the country, people are protesting the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery and demanding action against police violence and systemic racism. National media focuses on the big demonstrations and protest policing in major cities, but they have not picked up on a different phenomenon that may have major long-term consequences for politics. Protests over racism and #BlackLivesMatter are spreading across the country — including in small towns with deeply conservative politics.
The scale of the protests is unprecedented
Two of us, Chenoweth and Pressman, have been gathering data on protests across the country, while the other, Putnam, studies political mobilization in Pennsylvania.
Our preliminary data shows that far more places have held protests already than held Women’s Marches in January 2017. That March occurred in 650 locations — and then had more participants than any other single-day demonstration in U.S. history. This time, few people had time for advance planning, amid a pandemic that has kept many Americans out of public spaces. And so the breadth of the protests is significant...
The ingrained political instinct of putting hard things off.
But does that not get to the composition of SAGE ? And the fact that it’s discussions were held behind closed doors.
Public health experts (as opposed to epidemiologist modellers) are used to dealing with imperfect knowledge, confounding factors etc - and understand the urgency of reacting quickly.
The same is true, for commercial reasons, of those involved in drug development. Clinical trials are the epitome of a Bayesian approach (though ironically the statistics utilised for analysing them usually aren’t).
No they don't you twat. Not under your laws. Even the BBC gets that.
In the US context it's like comparing George Washington with Jefferson Davis. Washington was a slave owner, but he also led his country to independence and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer of power. Whereas Davis led a rebellion to preserve slavery. A statue of Washington is not a statue celebrating slavery, a statue of Davis arguably is.
I've woken up this morning to see you accused me of racism last night.
I don't think that funny, and I take such accusations very seriously.
I expect you to withdraw that this morning and apologise.
What could possibly go wrong...