It’s not about politics

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
I can’t argue with that. But I think we’ll find out that a guilty verdict can be equally ineffective—if improving the situation was its aim. I’ve no reason to believe that it was.

Murderers aren't found guilty to improve their workplace. They're found guilty because they killed someone. If he feels he's less to blame because he's a product of the culture he could try it as a line of defense in his appeal.
 

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
Murderers aren't found guilty to improve their workplace. They're found guilty because they killed someone. If he feels he's less to blame because he's a product of the culture he could try it as a line of defense in his appeal.
All that I accept. And I’m conscious of what prison sentences achieve for citizens. However, judging from some responses (and interviews I’ve heard) the social expectations of this trial extended to making changes in how people are policed.

I’m simply suggesting that the outcome does absolutely nothing to further that cause—and (yes) everything to satisfy the natural thirst for punishment through torture.

It’s problematic to conflate the two—and it’s often the very human point upon which perpetrators and citizens alight to become identical. That might be perfectly OK, it’s certainly understandable, but ultimately it makes the project pointless from the perspective of making meaningful changes to policing policies. I still believe the working-classes might be capable of the latter, in a fashion which works with the positive suggestions they can make—rather than through the fearful reaction to us, which responds to an anxiety about our most base instincts (and simply aims to satisfy them) to maintain, rather than alter, states of affairs.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
All that I accept. And I’m conscious of what prison sentences achieve for citizens. However, judging from some responses (and interviews I’ve heard) the social expectations of this trial extended to making changes in how people are policed.

I’m simply suggesting that the outcome does absolutely nothing to further that cause—and (yes) everything to satisfy the natural thirst for punishment through torture.

It’s problematic to conflate the two—and it’s often the very human point upon which perpetrators and citizens alight to become identical. That might be perfectly OK, it’s certainly understandable, but ultimately it makes the project pointless from the perspective of making meaningful changes to policing policies. I still believe the working-classes might be capable of the latter, in a fashion which works with the positive suggestions they can make—rather than through the fearful reaction to us, which responds to an anxiety about our most base instincts (and simply aims to satisfy them) to maintain, rather than alter, states of affairs.

The cause & the crime are two different things. Jail's not unreasonable - maybe there's some better way to deal with murderers but we haven't found it yet.
 
C

California Son's Family

Guest
I am a Catholic, the idea of spending time in a cell regretting my actions is familiar.
No you're not. You're a Brit Proddy. This is just another one of your delusional lies like "California Son doesn't live in LA" I can also tell you're not Catholic by your anti-American style of writing.
 

ForgotHowIGotMyName

Well-Known Member
I can’t argue with that. But I think we’ll find out that a guilty verdict can be equally ineffective—if improving the situation was its aim.

That wasn't the aim and things are not going to improve.

Here's the thing. People are tragically and unjustly murdered every single day. The establishment decides which of these murders you are supposed to get outraged about. George Floyd wasn't the only person who died under controversial circumstances that week. He was just the only one you heard about. And you heard about it because the establishment wanted you to hear about it. You might say "It went viral online so the establishment HAD to report on it." But actually, no. The establishment can and does suppress viral news stories if it wants to. If you are pissed off about something you saw on the news, it's because the establishment wants you to be pissed off about it.

Now, you can argue over whether the media is driven primarily by profit or ideology. Do they promote white on black killings because it's good for clicks and ratings or do they do it to promote a narrative and advance a political agenda? It is probably a mix of both. Hot-button race issues are surefire clickbait. And yet...

It is funny that beginning with Trayvonn Martin in 2012 up until the election of Donald Trump, it was all BLM all of the time. Trayvonn in 2012, Mike Brown in 2014, Freddie Grey in 2015, then you had that BLM shooting in Dallas in 2016.
Then Donald Trump gets elected and you did not hear about BLM at all for three years. 2017: nothing. 2018: nothing. 2019: nothing. Then in 2020: Boom, George Floyd and its like we are right back where we left off in 2016. Our overlords can turn on and off the outrage like a light switch.
Me thinks our overlords came to the conclusion that BLM was causing whites to become too tribal and so they pulled the plug on it. It's interesting that Islamic terrorism also mysteriously stopped after Trump was elected. But then 2020 came around and they had to revive BLM because it was an election year and they needed to angry up the black vote.
Now that Trump is gone, whites have no one to rally behind. So from here on out, it's going to be one George Floyd after another. A slow process of demoralization as we dance into the abyss.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Why did Morrissey stick his oar in with Tommy Robinson?

On the front page of The New York Times this morning is the following:


"U.K. Far Right, Lifted by Trump, Now Turns to Russia

The anti-Islam agitator Tommy Robinson struck gold in America. Keeping it might require help from Moscow, where other British far-right activists are also finding friends."

merlin_147919416_507b6050-2955-431c-abe0-8d267e54f917-articleLarge.jpg



 

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
That wasn't the aim and things are not going to improve.

Here's the thing. People are tragically and unjustly murdered every single day. The establishment decides which of these murders you are supposed to get outraged about. George Floyd wasn't the only person who died under controversial circumstances that week. He was just the only one you heard about. And you heard about it because the establishment wanted you to hear about it. You might say "It went viral online so the establishment HAD to report on it." But actually, no. The establishment can and does suppress viral news stories if it wants to. If you are pissed off about something you saw on the news, it's because the establishment wants you to be pissed off about it.

Now, you can argue over whether the media is driven primarily by profit or ideology. Do they promote white on black killings because it's good for clicks and ratings or do they do it to promote a narrative and advance a political agenda? It is probably a mix of both. Hot-button race issues are surefire clickbait. And yet...

It is funny that beginning with Trayvonn Martin in 2012 up until the election of Donald Trump, it was all BLM all of the time. Trayvonn in 2012, Mike Brown in 2014, Freddie Grey in 2015, then you had that BLM shooting in Dallas in 2016.
Then Donald Trump gets elected and you did not hear about BLM at all for three years. 2017: nothing. 2018: nothing. 2019: nothing. Then in 2020: Boom, George Floyd and its like we are right back where we left off in 2016. Our overlords can turn on and off the outrage like a light switch.
Me thinks our overlords came to the conclusion that BLM was causing whites to become too tribal and so they pulled the plug on it. It's interesting that Islamic terrorism also mysteriously stopped after Trump was elected. But then 2020 came around and they had to revive BLM because it was an election year and they needed to angry up the black vote.
Now that Trump is gone, whites have no one to rally behind. So from here on out, it's going to be one George Floyd after another. A slow process of demoralization as we dance into the abyss.
Well, yes. But I’d say the predicament you describe is basically the model of what we call civilisation: communities relieved of imminent threats from a perceived outside, turn in on themselves—and the controlling instincts are increasingly exercised within. It’s when cohesive cultural myths are sacrificed (as they are now, and have been before—in Ancient civilisations) to satisfy ‘the enemy within’ that it all becomes increasingly transparent and risky.

A friend said to me, the other day, that if the Chinese were to take us over we wouldn’t notice. And yes: so begins the dangerous stare into the abyss.

You might be aware of the threat of ‘the big six’ to leave the English football Premier League last week—I think it represented something existential. People are being alienated from the very turf under their feet: time and space is disappearing. But I suppose I’d disagree that it’s unusual. It’s actually part of an inescapable cycle.
 
Last edited:

Hovis Lesley

Well-Known Member
Why did Morrissey stick his oar in with Tommy Robinson?

On the front page of The New York Times this morning is the following:


"U.K. Far Right, Lifted by Trump, Now Turns to Russia

The anti-Islam agitator Tommy Robinson struck gold in America. Keeping it might require help from Moscow, where other British far-right activists are also finding friends."

merlin_147919416_507b6050-2955-431c-abe0-8d267e54f917-articleLarge.jpg



In the 50s, 60s and 70s UK left-wing activists (apparently representing the working-classes) similarly found ‘friends’ behind the Iron Curtain. What can it mean?
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
That wasn't the aim and things are not going to improve.

Here's the thing. People are tragically and unjustly murdered every single day. The establishment decides which of these murders you are supposed to get outraged about. George Floyd wasn't the only person who died under controversial circumstances that week. He was just the only one you heard about. And you heard about it because the establishment wanted you to hear about it. You might say "It went viral online so the establishment HAD to report on it." But actually, no. The establishment can and does suppress viral news stories if it wants to. If you are pissed off about something you saw on the news, it's because the establishment wants you to be pissed off about it.

Now, you can argue over whether the media is driven primarily by profit or ideology. Do they promote white on black killings because it's good for clicks and ratings or do they do it to promote a narrative and advance a political agenda? It is probably a mix of both. Hot-button race issues are surefire clickbait. And yet...

It is funny that beginning with Trayvonn Martin in 2012 up until the election of Donald Trump, it was all BLM all of the time. Trayvonn in 2012, Mike Brown in 2014, Freddie Grey in 2015, then you had that BLM shooting in Dallas in 2016.
Then Donald Trump gets elected and you did not hear about BLM at all for three years. 2017: nothing. 2018: nothing. 2019: nothing. Then in 2020: Boom, George Floyd and its like we are right back where we left off in 2016. Our overlords can turn on and off the outrage like a light switch.
Me thinks our overlords came to the conclusion that BLM was causing whites to become too tribal and so they pulled the plug on it. It's interesting that Islamic terrorism also mysteriously stopped after Trump was elected. But then 2020 came around and they had to revive BLM because it was an election year and they needed to angry up the black vote.
Now that Trump is gone, whites have no one to rally behind. So from here on out, it's going to be one George Floyd after another. A slow process of demoralization as we dance into the abyss.

George Floyd became a big news story because the footage was harrowing & there wasn't much going on apart from the pandemic.
 

Nerak

Reverse Ferret
Why did Morrissey stick his oar in with Tommy Robinson?

On the front page of The New York Times this morning is the following:


"U.K. Far Right, Lifted by Trump, Now Turns to Russia

The anti-Islam agitator Tommy Robinson struck gold in America. Keeping it might require help from Moscow, where other British far-right activists are also finding friends."

merlin_147919416_507b6050-2955-431c-abe0-8d267e54f917-articleLarge.jpg




He mentioned him once.

No one bangs on about the one time Morrissey mentioned George Galloway.

Or the couple of times he mentioned Jeremy Corbyn.
 
Top Bottom