George Floyd - America so f**ked up

As explained several times, there was no insult and no change of tune, just an explanation of something. No, nothing withdrawn or redacted, just explained.

I did read what you wrote at the end of page 59, several times, but couldn't work out what you were trying to say.

I've tried to reply to everything you've asked. If something I've said isn't clear, just ask, always happy to go over a point a reasonable number of times.

You can make whatever character assessment you chose about me, that's out of my control.

OK, let's crack on with the debate.

So, we've agreed what we are both saying about their position on capitalism, I say they are anti-capitalist, you appear to be saying they only oppose capitalism that disproportionately oppresses black people, I've no idea how you separate that out, but that's my understanding of your position, OK then, shall we look at their position on what they call 'The Nuclear Family'?

Yes, it doesn't sound very structured and it's hard to see who is going to be accountable / responsible in any given situation.

I think you and I understand the situation in America, where there's a direct correlation between single parent families and poverty, crime, etc regardless of skin colour, so for me, it's hard to put forward an argument for anything other than a model that is demonstrated to produce results that help to counter social and economic inequality.

Maybe.

Of course there's a lot more to it than just have 2 parents and you're set for life, but those USA stats are difficult to argue against; have 2 parents within a family unit, complete your education, tick those boxes and you magically fall outside of the social groups that struggle most.

That's played out regardless of skin colour.

Suggesting what appears to be some kind of community based parenting sounds very 'new age' and 'right on', but this isn't a game, we are talking about people's lives here, I'll go with the model that the data overwhelmingly suggests helps most. If BLM have alternative data then of course it should be assessed fairly.

Another topic. Nick Buckley, MBE, charity worker and campaigner for disadvantaged and homeless youths, of all colours, in Manchester, he's helped literally thousands over the years, now sacked from his own charity by the trustees for a statement he made about BLM.

Here's my question, has it gone too far when a Man like this loses his job for having and voicing an opinion?

Here's what he said;

This is why the left say Defund the Police.

Herein lies an issue, which is a general criticism of almost every post you make. You assert something that is not actually said, critique the poster on your assertion and then proceed to construct an argument against your own assertion.

For example. This what you assert.

"It does seem that we have more than a hint of double standards here, it's fine for a Man who establishes a charity that helps thousands that fit squarely into the demographic you argue for to be ousted for having an opinion, yet you ignore Police officers acting in an overtly political manner. Should they all be sacked as well?"

I did NOT say it was fine for him to be sacked, I asked YOU what did you expect if the guy broke organisation Comms rules?

As for Police Officers acting in an overtly "political manner", I have no idea what you are referring to.

Moving along...you do it again

"BLM complain that they aren't allowed to criticise yet a good Man loses his position for voicing an opinion that doesn't support them. This doesn't feel like Britain to me at all, this is the sort of story you expect to hear about coming out of some far away rather unpleasant place."

Not only did they not complain they did overtly criticize the Israeli expansion of settlements. What they criticised was the lack of condemnation by Western politicians, which broadly is true. Specifically though Johnson just shot that down by penning the article in the Israeli press.

And I asked you what rules had been broken, then went on to explain the actual reason given for him losing his position. That's not arguing against my own position, it's questioning what you've said and providing information that it appears you may not have. I thought that was reasonable dialogue. If you can't hold a discussion on those terms then I honestly don't know where to go with you next.

In saying 'what do you expect' in response to him losing his job, that kind of suggests that you think the correct decision has been taken. 

Ref Police, I was talking about the act of Police officers kneeling whilst raising a clenched fist, an overtly political act.

Yes, you are right, they didn't say that they themselves were gagged, they said that 'mainstream British politics' had been gagged, for which they provided no evidence or examples, but the point still stands, freedom of speech or not? 

Did I say it was just you? I haven't even suggested it's just you. I suggest you go and read my posts first. It's also not just me saying it doesn't mean that. As I've said from the beginning, we have a questionable statement. 

It's funny to see how open minded you're being about all of this. I've never read a more open minded set of posts 😂 What happened to, "you disagree - as is your right". Now you're trying to turn it into a (fixed) competition to prove how right you are. I mean, you really couldn't make this up at this point. Yet again, we're seeing your true colours show. For some reason, you seem to think that the more articles written on something, means that an opinion is correct. What an incredibly dangerous precedent to set. Are you sure you want to go down that route?

You must surely see the the world doesn't work this way? If any organisation makes a statement about anything, you don't then have opinions and articles written to agree with a small subsection of an overall picture. Instead, what you get are opposing parties who'll jump on anything they can in order to discredit something, in favour of their own views. So actually, it would be the less articles there are - would be the winner of majority. 

I thought we were going to move on from this, but clearly that seems difficult for you - starting to suggest competitions to prove a point that I disagree with isn't exactly a debate. 

-- 

Regarding your last paragraph, where has this started? I will make sure to get round to reading it later tonight and catch up on the subject.

Merging the conversations.
I think it fair to say that the BLM are anti capitalist in the way it operates and adversely affects non western economies, environment, cultures and races.
History surely supports this view?

As for the nuclear family point raised by BLM, I agree their script is nebulous. But it does highlight the pressures families are under if they find themselves in lower income groups. Again, BAME groups are disproportionately represented in lower income groups. Is it wrong that they should seek to address the issue, nebulous proposal not withstanding?

On Free Speech. The guy in Manchester was dismissed for being critical of BLM. On paper that is ridiculous. But then he was employed by the Charity he founded, which now had a board of Trustees who would have set rules of employment. I don't know about anybody else but I always see the clauses (paraphrased)... confidentiality...shall not bring the company into disrepute..
Now I don't know the context in which this bloke made his remarks but I can only conclude that the Trustees had grounds for the dismissal, perhaps utilising clauses I have mentioned above. Conclude because if they did not dismiss for breach of employment rules they would themselves bring their charity into disrepute.

1. "I think we have a chicken and egg thing with this 2 parent family data situation?"

I don't agree. If we, as a society, set minimum standards of housing, education, health provision and social services then it is my opinion that many of the issues causing family breakdown will be ameliorated. Eliminated? No of course not.

2. "The trustees told him that it was fear of pressure, in the present environment, from corporate partners".

He said that? Or was that what the Trustees said? I can imagine that this could well be the case, which leaves the Trustees in an invideous position.
Rather like the issues Facebook are facing currently.

3. "Do you know of a better system than capitalism?"

I would never claim to. But I do believe we must understand the consequences of what we do. (Education comes into play here).
So if we militarily, or commercially, exploit the natural reserves or subjugate the local population to working practices that would be illegal in our own country, then those peoples have every right to call us out.