[Mild Rover]

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Mon Jun 22, 2020 5:40 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Just because you are black doesn't mean the standard of education on offer is any worse, the fact you don't live in an atmosphere that encourages you to make the most of it or a peer group who don't see the opportunity it offers has nothing to do with racism - its culture and only one group can turn that around. Perhaps if the ethnics were prepared to integrate more rather than living in closed communities that would help. Yes we all need to make adjustments but it isn't all one way traffic.

Even if that were all true and applied universally, it still wouldn’t be a justification for not combating racism. But yes, everybody can make changes to help themselves and give others the fairest possible crack.

Sal Paradise wrote:

We don't have anything like the baggage from the past - to suggest otherwise is nonsense - we don't swagger around because we had an Empire or we stopped Germany taking over Europe twice. You only have to look at Reading and ask why is it that this happens - it has nothing to with racism.

If that is self-parody, it is brilliant. If it is a lack of self-awareness... still kinda brilliant. Nothing says ‘modern Britain, comfortable in its own skin, shoulders free of chips, at peace with its past, and with a clear vision of its place in the world and future direction’ quite like bringing up the war. Or having a ragged, end-of-the-pier honey monster tribute act as Prime Minister.

Changing tack, this has reminded me of Jeff Taylor. As I mentioned a while ago, I am expanding my news and political commentary diet. I think everybody should check out Jeff’s YouTube channel - I guarantee, whatever your politics, you’ll be gleefully confirmed in your prejudices.

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:45 pm  

I think you’ve pretty much answered your own question there. Unless you’re saying that discrimination only becomes an issue when it is absolute and all opportunities are denied.

I like ‘equality’ in inverted commas, and ‘justice’ later on. Obviously, it’d be childish of me to start doing it with another abstract concept, such as ‘sovereignty’, and, equally obviously, that won’t be stopping me. Gammons want ‘sovereignty’, yes? So tell me, what challenges faced a gammon that aren’t there following our departure from the EU? I don’t deny that membership of the EU meant some pooling of ‘sovereignty’ but did it remove all our political, economic and legal independence?

Another false equivalence. Leaving the EU wasn't a matter of overcoming 'challenges' but preferences. I simply preferred not to be ruled by an undemocratic body in another country, and disagree with the concept and ideology of the EU and its leaders.

A young black kid has access to free education until the age of 18. They have access to apprenticeships and training. They have all the tools at their disposal for a good start in life into a career. Racism does not deny them any of that. The challenges they might face come down more to home life, peer pressure, aptitude and the community he/she steps into each morning, which includes a higher rate of single parent households than any other ethnicity. That's before we even talk about culture. None of this is due to racism.

Are you suggesting that all black people carry knives or are involved in drugs and casual criminality, or that only those that are, are harassed by the police? In which case it wouldn’t really be harassment, in fairness. If you’re saying it is a skin colour thing and innocent black people have to expect harassment or discrimination because of what black criminals do, that seems strange to me. I think it’d be unfair, and frankly ridiculous, for me to be judged based on the worst actions of other white people or be racially profiled, for example, as the sort of person who associates political protest with lager.

That's a very 'Cathy Newman' response, I expect better from you.

Rightly or wrongly, it's a fact blacks are more likely to be carrying knives or committing crime in London. That's indisputable. The arrest rate of blacks (35 per 1,000) is 3.5 x whites (10 per 1,000) in England/Wales. It's pretty simple: if you're a copper working in a black community in which there are daily stabbings and other criminality committed by mainly young black males, you are going to keep an eye on and check young black males. Yes, innocents will get caught up in this, but what is the alternative?

Perhaps we could copy the US? 'Autonomous Zones' popping up in cities where police are not permitted to enter. It's going REALLY, REALLY well.

Regardless, the point is it doesn't really matter how much virtue signalling is going on - you can only achieve change by raising black communities out of poverty, changing racist minds and by removing the culture of casual criminality, drugs and the lure of a gangster lifestyle over a pretty dull 'normal' working life. Telling every white in the UK just how racist we all are over and over and over and tearing down our history and attacking our police, threatening to "kill all whites" and posting dozens of videos of attacks on lone whites is only creating massive division.

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:45 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

Even if that were all true and applied universally, it still wouldn’t be a justification for not combating racism. But yes, everybody can make changes to help themselves and give others the fairest possible crack.

If that is self-parody, it is brilliant. If it is a lack of self-awareness... still kinda brilliant. Nothing says ‘modern Britain, comfortable in its own skin, shoulders free of chips, at peace with its past, and with a clear vision of its place in the world and future direction’ quite like bringing up the war. Or having a ragged, end-of-the-pier honey monster tribute act as Prime Minister.

Changing tack, this has reminded me of Jeff Taylor. As I mentioned a while ago, I am expanding my news and political commentary diet. I think everybody should check out Jeff’s YouTube channel - I guarantee, whatever your politics, you’ll be gleefully confirmed in your prejudices.

This is a country that should be justifiably proud of itself - its got nothing to do with Empire or wars its about its contribution to the global society - foreign aid c£17bn, one of the most innovative countries on the planet, very diverse culturally - we have an Indian Chancellor and a Pakistani Home Secretary etc.

[Mild Rover]

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:55 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

This is a country that should be justifiably proud of itself - its got nothing to do with Empire or wars its about its contribution to the global society - foreign aid c£17bn, one of the most innovative countries on the planet, very diverse culturally - we have an Indian Chancellor and a Pakistani Home Secretary etc.

There is much that is excellent about the UK, I agree. It is my home and I care deeply about it.

However, the concept of national pride is interesting to me. It only works (in any country, realistically) if only look with one eye... or are willing to accept an element of national shame (and who wants that).

Taking pride in or identifying with Shakespeare or Newton or Brunel or Wilberforce or the Beatles is attractive and easy. How then, do We process centuries of antisemitism and homophobia, Matthew Hopkins, slave traders, witch hunters, invading China to force our opium into their markets and the Bullingdon Club? Do we take a ‘no true Scotsman’ attitude and label those things unrepresentative? That rather obliges us not to pick out the worst elements of other countries and cultures and consider them representative of those, for the sake of intellectual rigour and honesty.

Ultimately, we’re not really so very different from anybody else.

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Tue Jun 23, 2020 1:58 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

There is much that is excellent about the UK, I agree. It is my home and I care deeply about it.

However, the concept of national pride is interesting to me. It only works (in any country, realistically) if only look with one eye... or are willing to accept an element of national shame (and who wants that).

Taking pride in or identifying with Shakespeare or Newton or Brunel or Wilberforce or the Beatles is attractive and easy. How then, do We process centuries of antisemitism and homophobia, Matthew Hopkins, slave traders, witch hunters, invading China to force our opium into their markets and the Bullingdon Club? Do we take a ‘no true Scotsman’ attitude and label those things unrepresentative? That rather obliges us not to pick out the worst elements of other countries and cultures and consider them representative of those, for the sake of intellectual rigour and honesty.

Ultimately, we’re not really so very different from anybody else.

This is all true. The concept of British (or American) exceptionalism confuses me - we're obviously not racially superior to anyone else (although some of the posts on the last few pages make me wonder if some folk don't think "we" (I think they meant white people but I'll say British) are. We're quite good at quite a few things and have a pleasant enough little country to live in, in most places. We've had some good moments over the past three or four centuries, in material terms if nothing else, we've had moments when we were powerful but on the other hand we didn't use that power in particularly pleasing ways at times and certainly it didn't elevate the lives of many living here or in our conquered lands. For most of the later 20th century we were a declining power although we projected more power than we actually had through our standing in international bodies like the UN and the EU. But exceptional? Not particularly, not compared to any other country.

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:29 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

There is much that is excellent about the UK, I agree. It is my home and I care deeply about it.

However, the concept of national pride is interesting to me. It only works (in any country, realistically) if only look with one eye... or are willing to accept an element of national shame (and who wants that).

Taking pride in or identifying with Shakespeare or Newton or Brunel or Wilberforce or the Beatles is attractive and easy. How then, do We process centuries of antisemitism and homophobia, Matthew Hopkins, slave traders, witch hunters, invading China to force our opium into their markets and the Bullingdon Club? Do we take a ‘no true Scotsman’ attitude and label those things unrepresentative? That rather obliges us not to pick out the worst elements of other countries and cultures and consider them representative of those, for the sake of intellectual rigour and honesty.

Ultimately, we’re not really so very different from anybody else.

I disagree - we are very different why else would a tiny country be so prosperous?

What you cannot do is apply the conventions that were applicable in years gone by to today's cultural environment. We embrace the innovation and progress of the industrial revolution but we accept they had children working in the mills. Some on here are upset that we don't have any coal mines but accept thousands of miners died getting coal out of the ground etc.

Compared to some of the inhuman behaviour of the Socialist Icons - Stalin, Lennin, Mao we are pussycats by comparison.

[Mild Rover]

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:58 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote: I disagree - we are very different why else would a tiny country be so prosperous? A couple of queries to help calibrate further discussion: When did our claimed difference manifest? Are we more or less special than our ancestors of 150 years ago, given we’re more prosperous in absolute terms, but less prosperous relative to the rest of the world? Here’s my thinking. Among the earliest civilisations were those of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Maybe those people were somehow different, but I think it is likely that a more important factor is that those civilisations flourished in area we call ‘the fertile crescent’, and not, for example ‘the barren triangle’. The ancient civilisation of the Indus plain is thought to have disappeared due to rivers changing their course and an extended period of drought. This seems more plausible to me than them being special and then stopping being special. Here is a list of the top 25 most prosperous countries in the world, according to USA Today. The top one chucked out by my Google search. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /39630693/ 25. France 24. Finland 23. Bahrain 22. Belgium 21. Australia 20. Canada 19. Austria 18. Germany 17. Sweden 16. Denmark 15. Netherlands 14. Saudi Arabia 13. Ireland 12. USA 11. Switzerland 10. Hong Kong 9. Luxembourg 8. Norway 7. UAE 6. Bermuda 5. Kuwait 4. Brunei 3. Singapore 2. Macau 1. Qatar Now, leaving aside the obvious absentee from the list, I’m guessing you’d be a little reluctant to give a huge amount of credit to the Arab Gulf states that take 5 of the top 25 spots, as being different in a good way and having earned their prosperity through some sort of native genius. And I’d agree with you. But you then have to look at the circumstances that led to this country being at the forefront of the industrial revolution, for example. Key to it was the large amount of coal that was relatively easy to access and transport. I’m not downplaying the ingenuity and hard work required to exploit that natural resource - but without it or less of it or if it had been harder to reach, then history takes a different direction. Norway was one of Europe’s poorer countries when Knut Hamsun was writing - then its oil industry took off. Now they’re top of the mostly very white prosperity pops. And this matters. If we believe we’re special when we’re not it could lead us into arrogant misjudgements and some right terrible pickles.

Sal Paradise wrote: I disagree - we are very different why else would a tiny country be so prosperous? A couple of queries to help calibrate further discussion: When did our claimed difference manifest? Are we more or less special than our ancestors of 150 years ago, given we’re more prosperous in absolute terms, but less prosperous relative to the rest of the world? Here’s my thinking. Among the earliest civilisations were those of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Maybe those people were somehow different, but I think it is likely that a more important factor is that those civilisations flourished in area we call ‘the fertile crescent’, and not, for example ‘the barren triangle’. The ancient civilisation of the Indus plain is thought to have disappeared due to rivers changing their course and an extended period of drought. This seems more plausible to me than them being special and then stopping being special. Here is a list of the top 25 most prosperous countries in the world, according to USA Today. The top one chucked out by my Google search. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /39630693/ 25. France 24. Finland 23. Bahrain 22. Belgium 21. Australia 20. Canada 19. Austria 18. Germany 17. Sweden 16. Denmark 15. Netherlands 14. Saudi Arabia 13. Ireland 12. USA 11. Switzerland 10. Hong Kong 9. Luxembourg 8. Norway 7. UAE 6. Bermuda 5. Kuwait 4. Brunei 3. Singapore 2. Macau 1. Qatar Now, leaving aside the obvious absentee from the list, I’m guessing you’d be a little reluctant to give a huge amount of credit to the Arab Gulf states that take 5 of the top 25 spots, as being different in a good way and having earned their prosperity through some sort of native genius. And I’d agree with you. But you then have to look at the circumstances that led to this country being at the forefront of the industrial revolution, for example. Key to it was the large amount of coal that was relatively easy to access and transport. I’m not downplaying the ingenuity and hard work required to exploit that natural resource - but without it or less of it or if it had been harder to reach, then history takes a different direction. Norway was one of Europe’s poorer countries when Knut Hamsun was writing - then its oil industry took off. Now they’re top of the mostly very white prosperity pops. And this matters. If we believe we’re special when we’re not it could lead us into arrogant misjudgements and some right terrible pickles.

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:26 pm  

Brilliant post.

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:25 pm  

Mild Rover wrote: A couple of queries to help calibrate further discussion: When did our claimed difference manifest? Are we more or less special than our ancestors of 150 years ago, given we’re more prosperous in absolute terms, but less prosperous relative to the rest of the world? Here’s my thinking. Among the earliest civilisations were those of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Maybe those people were somehow different, but I think it is likely that a more important factor is that those civilisations flourished in area we call ‘the fertile crescent’, and not, for example ‘the barren triangle’. The ancient civilisation of the Indus plain is thought to have disappeared due to rivers changing their course and an extended period of drought. This seems more plausible to me than them being special and then stopping being special. Here is a list of the top 25 most prosperous countries in the world, according to USA Today. The top one chucked out by my Google search. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /39630693/ 25. France 24. Finland 23. Bahrain 22. Belgium 21. Australia 20. Canada 19. Austria 18. Germany 17. Sweden 16. Denmark 15. Netherlands 14. Saudi Arabia 13. Ireland 12. USA 11. Switzerland 10. Hong Kong 9. Luxembourg 8. Norway 7. UAE 6. Bermuda 5. Kuwait 4. Brunei 3. Singapore 2. Macau 1. Qatar Now, leaving aside the obvious absentee from the list, I’m guessing you’d be a little reluctant to give a huge amount of credit to the Arab Gulf states that take 5 of the top 25 spots, as being different in a good way and having earned their prosperity through some sort of native genius. And I’d agree with you. But you then have to look at the circumstances that led to this country being at the forefront of the industrial revolution, for example. Key to it was the large amount of coal that was relatively easy to access and transport. I’m not downplaying the ingenuity and hard work required to exploit that natural resource - but without it or less of it or if it had been harder to reach, then history takes a different direction. Norway was one of Europe’s poorer countries when Knut Hamsun was writing - then its oil industry took off. Now they’re top of the mostly very white prosperity pops. And this matters. If we believe we’re special when we’re not it could lead us into arrogant misjudgements and some right terrible pickles. I would have thought quality of life would be more important than this league table of monetary values. Looking at the USA, for a large section of the population no adequate health care is available. Large sections of the black community exist on a poor minimum wage with a poor welfare state. Some of which contributes to the black lives matter movement. World index of quality of life 2020 we are number 20 in the table, room for improvement but still a reasonable position. In your listed table we don’t appear to get a mention. We have 3 universities in the world’s top ten. Let’s not forget the many inventions that we have produced and introduced to the world. The most recent was the World Wide Web.

Mild Rover wrote: A couple of queries to help calibrate further discussion: When did our claimed difference manifest? Are we more or less special than our ancestors of 150 years ago, given we’re more prosperous in absolute terms, but less prosperous relative to the rest of the world? Here’s my thinking. Among the earliest civilisations were those of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. Maybe those people were somehow different, but I think it is likely that a more important factor is that those civilisations flourished in area we call ‘the fertile crescent’, and not, for example ‘the barren triangle’. The ancient civilisation of the Indus plain is thought to have disappeared due to rivers changing their course and an extended period of drought. This seems more plausible to me than them being special and then stopping being special. Here is a list of the top 25 most prosperous countries in the world, according to USA Today. The top one chucked out by my Google search. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... /39630693/ 25. France 24. Finland 23. Bahrain 22. Belgium 21. Australia 20. Canada 19. Austria 18. Germany 17. Sweden 16. Denmark 15. Netherlands 14. Saudi Arabia 13. Ireland 12. USA 11. Switzerland 10. Hong Kong 9. Luxembourg 8. Norway 7. UAE 6. Bermuda 5. Kuwait 4. Brunei 3. Singapore 2. Macau 1. Qatar Now, leaving aside the obvious absentee from the list, I’m guessing you’d be a little reluctant to give a huge amount of credit to the Arab Gulf states that take 5 of the top 25 spots, as being different in a good way and having earned their prosperity through some sort of native genius. And I’d agree with you. But you then have to look at the circumstances that led to this country being at the forefront of the industrial revolution, for example. Key to it was the large amount of coal that was relatively easy to access and transport. I’m not downplaying the ingenuity and hard work required to exploit that natural resource - but without it or less of it or if it had been harder to reach, then history takes a different direction. Norway was one of Europe’s poorer countries when Knut Hamsun was writing - then its oil industry took off. Now they’re top of the mostly very white prosperity pops. And this matters. If we believe we’re special when we’re not it could lead us into arrogant misjudgements and some right terrible pickles. I would have thought quality of life would be more important than this league table of monetary values. Looking at the USA, for a large section of the population no adequate health care is available. Large sections of the black community exist on a poor minimum wage with a poor welfare state. Some of which contributes to the black lives matter movement. World index of quality of life 2020 we are number 20 in the table, room for improvement but still a reasonable position. In your listed table we don’t appear to get a mention. We have 3 universities in the world’s top ten. Let’s not forget the many inventions that we have produced and introduced to the world. The most recent was the World Wide Web.

Re: US Presidential election 2020 : Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:38 pm  

World quality of life index:

Country
Quality of Life Index
1 Denmark 192.67
2 Switzerland 192.01
3 Finland 190.22
4 Australia 186.21
5 Netherlands 183.67
6 Austria 182.50
7 Iceland 181.75
8 New Zealand 181.02
9 Germany 179.78
10 Estonia 177.82
11 Sweden 175.95
12 Norway 175.19
13 Slovenia 172.15
14 United States 172.11
15 Spain 169.82
16 Japan 167.99
17 Oman 167.09
18 Canada 163.47
19 Portugal 162.91
20 United Kingdom 162.71
21 Qatar 162.29
22 Lithuania 159.42
23 Croatia 159.01
24 United Arab Emirates156.67
25 Czech Republic 156.24
26 France 153.95
27 Ireland 153.53
28 Belgium 153.47
29 Slovakia 152.53
30 Saudi Arabia 150.56
31 Latvia 150.00
32 Israel 149.94
33 Cyprus 147.93
34 Singapore 144.39
35 Taiwan 143.23
36 Poland 141.83
37 Italy 140.76
38 South Korea 139.02
39 Belarus 134.83
40 Greece 133.07
41 Romania 132.44
42 South Africa 131.97
43 Bulgaria129.80
44 Hungary 128.16
45 Turkey 127.10
46 Uruguay 125.98
47 Ecuador 125.14
48 Bosnia And Herzegovina 121.89
49 Chile 119.76
50 Mexico 118.55
51 Malaysia118.44
52 Serbia 116.30
53 Georgia 115.95
54 Kuwait 115.75
55 Argentina 115.31
56 Jordan 112.40
57 North Macedonia 110.46
58 India 108.63
59 Panama 108.36
60 Lebanon 106.56
61 Colombia 105.83
62 Brazil 105.65
63 Morocco 105.46
64 Pakistan105.44
65 Ukraine 104.77
66 China 102.81
67 Russia 102.31
68 Thailand 101.88
69 Hong Kong 99.05
70 Indonesia 97.47
71 Kazakhstan 88.31
72 Vietnam 87.48
73 Egypt 86.54
74 Peru 85.46
75 Philippines 85.37
76 Sri Lanka 85.16
77 Iran 74.14
78 Kenya 70.56
79 Bangladesh 70.03
80 Nigeria