Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

What right do the protestors have to claim they were acting on behalf of "the people of Bristol"? The removal of the statue was a matter for elected representatives, not a mob.
6
@carlossaraiva8213 What's false about it? According to Phil the statue-topplers were justified because they were "doing the will of the people." The will of the people, if such a thing exists, can only be judged by a democratic vote. You can't just decide it for yourself.
2
@rocketscience4516 So democracy falls before the moral indignation of a minority then? In this instance it has worked out quite well, but it does set an uncomfortable precedent.
2
@errorswillmultiply1697 Now you've gone and spoiled it. I only have reservations about vaccines.
2
But wasn't Phil talking about "the will of the people"?
1
@carlossaraiva8213 I'm not being dense. He said it. He said the statue-topplers were acting on behalf of the people of Bristol.
1
@carlossaraiva8213 How am I being dense? The government has more right to claim that it represents "the will of the people" than any individual or pressure group, since the government is democratically elected. Mind you, the whole idea of "the will of the people" is pretty crackpot anyway.
1
@DavidMoxham957 The verdict is subject to appeal, and it will be up to a Court of Appeal to decide if the jury's verdict was correct in law, should we go down that route That is only right and proper. Personally I don't think it was correct since criminal damage clearly did take place and the justification for it was questionable, to say the least.
1
@DavidMoxham957 Certainly. I can think of no other.
1
@carlossaraiva8213 By what process of deduction have you concluded that I am a (dense) Brexiteer? And what's rethoric?
1
Surely you can see the difference between a contemporary dictator and a minor public figure of 300 years ago?
1
@jiversteve Protest does not include criminal damage - or rather it often does, and people should expect to be punished when caught. In Nazi Germany, of course, breaking windows and painting yellow stars on walls was quite the thing.
1
@rocketscience4516 Well your view is obviously influenced by the company YOU keep. There is a thing called democracy which decides between a majority and a minority. It is a logical absurdity to assume that the erection of the statue had anything to do with Colston's activities as a slave trader. It was only during his lifetime that slave-trading had even begun to be questioned. Until that point it had been a constant feature of human history. Applying a retrospective morality in this way means the destruction of all history, more or less, and must be resisted in the interests of truth. He was commemorated as a benefactor to the people of Bristol, which he was to a very great extent. For a group of pompous, self-righteous activists to decide that their views justify the destruction of public property, and to do so without being punished for it, means that anyone prompted by a moral concern can do the same thing. I hate wind turbines because they are very ugly, kill birds and make electricity expensive. This verdict means I am justified in blowing them up as soon as I can lay my hands on some dynamite.
1
@rocketscience4516 You were never much fun to argue with.
1
@rocketscience4516 By the way, a point you seem to have missed is that the protest groups you mention were fighting against real injustices which were really occurring at the time. The Colston vandals are just conceited children delving into the distant past to find a hate figure to bolster their idiotic views. Not in the same league.
1
@rocketscience4516 I think it would be rather fun to throw a statue into a river though!
1
@rocketscience4516 They are not ongoing. That's the point. BLM and leftist race-baiting generally are an insult to the fighters and martyrs of the 1960's who effectively outlawed racism in any real sense of the word. The prodding of its corpse back to life in order to provide Marxism with an otherwise absent proletariat is one of the most disgusting of the many disgusting tactics employed by the contemporary left. Talking of Marx, I think he once wrote that history repeats itself: first as tragedy and secondly as farce. He could even have been right in this instance. Contrast civil rights campaigners being murdered by Southern rednecks in the 1960's with a gaggle of spoilt English students pulling down the statue of a perfectly ordinary 17th century businessman and thinking themselves no end of heroes for doing so.
1
@rocketscience4516 They are not ongoing. To pretend that they are in order to provide Marxism with an otherwise absent oppressed proletariat is an insult to the civil rights fighters and martyrs of the 1960s. Talking of Marx, I think he once said that history repeats itself: first as tragedy and secondly as farce. He could even have been right in this instance. Contrast civil rights campaigners being murdered in the Deep South with a gaggle of spoilt students pulling down the statue of a perfectly ordinary 17th century businessman and thinking very highly of themselves for doing so.
1
@rocketscience4516 Tell that to all the black policemen, judges, business leaders and politicians in the US. Give me evidence of one indisputable incident of institutional racism is this country or even in America. Just one. (I can. But it would be white people on the receiving end.) Why do have so much trouble reading, by the way? I've often wondered.
1
@errorswillmultiply1697 The Apex Fallacy is a fallacy. You might just as well say that the cornflakes at the bottom of the box are there because they haven't been given a fair chance to get to the top. As to the second issue I leave this entirely to your judgement.
1
@errorswillmultiply1697 As I understand it the Apex Fallacy says that one cannot judge the performance of a particular group by the performances of the most successful in that group. As is the case with a box of cornflakes, as opposed to other breakfast cereals, this applies to all groups and so is irrelevant to the issue of discrimination. You are prevaricating on issue two.
1
@errorswillmultiply1697 I thought we were talking about success or lack of it? My incidents of racism against white people would be the utterly disgraceful way the thousands of white children systematically raped by grooming gangs have been ignored by police and politicians on racial grounds. Nothing to do with career paths. So silly yourself. And I can't be expected to tell you what I would accept as evidence until the evidence is presented. The ball remains in your court.
1
@Dash8Q400Channel But this is surely just vigorous banter, and nothing to do with racism? I'm not a sports fan myself but I get the impression that it is perfectly acceptable to go for some distinguishing characteristic of a player and loudly mock him for it. Fat players, ugly players, players with odd names or bad haircuts don't get upset. Why should black players? Or indeed white middle-class do-gooders on their behalf?
1
@rocketscience4516 Sadly the YouTube Gestapo Algorithm does not allow me to respond adequately. It it is, however, telling that you have to go back thirty years to cite the Lawrence case. As for Mr Floyd......it is forbidden to speak ill of newly-canonised saints, it seems.
1
@rocketscience4516 I've been through this exercise. They just seem like a load of of pathetic whinging for the most part. Racism is entirely natural anyway. It's an inbuilt defence mechanism which has to be subjected to personal examination if it is to be conquered. (Sometimes it is disadvantageous to conquer it, of course.) People from Caribbean islands tend to despise people from other Caribbean islands more than any of them are despised by white people. Many Asians are fearful of blacks. It's just the way it is. and white people in Britain these days are probably among the least racist people in the world. Anti-racist legislation is everywhere and black people are quite grotesquely over-represented in TV shows and advertisements. It's been a long time since burning crosses were set up on front lawns in Surbiton.
1
@rocketscience4516 I am genuinely sorry to hear of your personal experiences. They must surely have happened several decades ago though, and the situation today is very different. I am not at all racist, although my parents and most of my schoolteachers certainly were. One of the reasons I resent the faux, imitation racism of today is because I was quite actively involved in attempting to curb the very real racism which occurred in the '60s and 70s. That effort was largely successful and I genuinely believe it is a serious mistake to deliberately whip up resentment today when there is but little cause for it. It is counter-productive when people really are rubbing along quite well together on the whole.
1
@Liz_for_PM_again The instinct for racism is based on two things: ignorance of the true nature of people of other races and the threat of the loss of property to members of another race. Both are overcome when a minority becomes sufficiently large for its characteristics to be generally known. English people now generally accept black people as they accept Welsh, Scottish and Irish people. They have done so for many years for the most part, as expressed, for instance, by the warm welcome generally given to black GIs during the War. Racial incidents since then have generally occurred when young men have looked for groups of other young men to fight, but this is just something that young men do. I think the situation in Britain has been adversely affected by the situation in America where black people are understandably aware of their ancestors' role as imported slaves, and white people feel guilty because of it. The trouble is largely political since the Democrat party relies on the black vote to survive and is guilty of whipping up this resentment in order to present itself as an antidote to it. That syndrome has filtered into our attitude over here to a certain extent, and there is no need for it. What racism exists is rare and residual and we do ourselves no favours by drawing exaggerated attention to the dangers of it. Throwing bananas on football pitches is not racism though. It is banter. It's no better or worse than accusing Swansea supporters of having sex with sheep.
1
@rocketscience4516 The incident of having bricks thrown through your windows must have been truly horrible but, as with the rest of your experiences, I think you must admit that it was probably the result of bored young people looking for an excuse for devilment rather than the result of any deeply-held racial prejudices. Racism is a first instinct response and only seems to occur with the onset of puberty, when sexual and territorial rivalries come to the fore. Most of us quickly learn to overcome it when we see the advantages that can be gained from extending the hand of friendship. After this point racial resentment becomes a form of psychosis and only relatively few people suffer from it -usually the more inadequate amongst us. As I have already said, I think it is a mistake to place too much emphasis upon the effects of this aberration. Shine a light on it and it grows, largely because it can be transformed into an effective political weapon. Resentment is very inflammable and this applies as much to the resentment of black people who feel they have been misused as it does to that of white people who can be made to believe their security is threatened. More so these days, I think. I remember being very disheartened by the growth of the National Front in the 1970s. It may shock you to know that I am equally disheartened by the appearance of BLM in the present day. They both represent two sides of the same coin: the encouragement and manipulation of racial resentment for political ends.
1
@rocketscience4516 We will doubtless talk again at some point. (Trump is not a racist by the way. He ignores racial differences, unlike the Democrats who capitalise on them. Trump's objection to immigrants from the south is based upon their economic and societal impact, not their racial backgrounds.)
1
@Liz_for_PM_again I am sorry to hear it.
1
@rocketscience4516 Trump's father's racist housing policies were circumscribed by law initially. As for Trump himself, he does not appear to be racist in any way . He just realises that setting up cheap housing in middle class areas is going to lead to crime and destroy property values. He is a realist who knows what sort of people tend to commit what sort of crimes, that's all. Whatever visceral racial feelings he inherited from the era of his upbringing seem to be completely under control.
1
@errorswillmultiply1697 Of course. The most recent example of any considerable change of opinion has been my attitude towards Donald Trump. I had little interest in US politics until his arrival on the scene and initially took up the lazy Brit view of him as some sort of ridiculous car salesman figure. Two years of listening to the constant stream of nonsensical vituperation against him, and examining its veracity in detail, caused me to very much change my mind.
1
@rocketscience4516 How so? If Trump has any residual racial antagonisms (which I doubt) he is quite clever enough to keep them to himself I'm sure.
1
@errorswillmultiply1697 I have to ask: why the interest? I can only bring relatively minor examples to mind. I was convinced for a while that since the number of covid 19 virions in existence is several times greater than the number of stars in the observable universe then all possible variants must have already come into existence. A mathematician then informed me that the number of possible variants is actually larger than the number of atoms in the universe, so that put paid to that idea.
1
@rocketscience4516 Is this all you've got? It seems to show a talent for realistic assessment rather than any irrational racial prejudice -plus a sense of humour of course. And so much is ancient history when Trump was clearly reflecting the attitudes of the time. You can't expect people in the 70s and 80s to behave like cossetted 21st century liberals. It would be weird if they did.
1
@errorswillmultiply1697 Fair enough. I'd like to be wrong more often than I appear to be though.
1