I’ve just seen another thread where a sweeping and negative statement was made about BLM, so I wanted to post my personal support for what Wikipedia describes as ‘a decentralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.’
I strongly support this, and I’m grateful to everyone with the courage to speak out (which included Colin Jackson on our last filming day for Iaith ar Daith, for which I’ve thanked him).
There is absolutely NO place for racism on this forum.
Whether there is a place for discussions around particular campaigning groups or particular campaigns, I’m not as stridently certain - but I suspect that it would be particularly hard to reach our twin requirements (for difficult political conversations) of absolute respect for other people and their views and zero sweeping generalisations.
If anyone feels that they have a burning need to discuss something that might be seen as negative about BLM, please send me a personal message, and I’ll make the call myself - but I will incline against it unless I’m absolutely convinced it’s really important.
If I may say one thing. It’s not enough to just be “not racist”, we have to be anti-racist. We can’t just not say or do racist things but still stand by when others do, we need to speak out and be active against racism.
This also stands for sexism, hating other nationalities, etc, etc. Hatred aimed towards anyone because of something out of their control (and within their control I’ll also include religious discrimination/intolerance) is abhorrent and I will not let it go unchallenged. Freedom of speech is not freedom to spout hatred.
I will talk to anyone about any of this, it needs discussion … but as Aran says, this forum needs to remain the place we can all feel safe.
Have you read any of Ibram X. Kendi’s work? Excellent place to start.
Also, Me and White Supremacy by Layla F. Saad, is a very challenge and excellent workbook.
What Geraint has said here is extremely important and far too often I’ve enjoyed the privilege of just cringing in silence instead of speaking out.
I’ve never had to consider my race, gender, or any other aspect of my demographic when going through life. For so many this isn’t true. This is completely unacceptable, and, as Geraint says, must be challenged.
I agree with almost everything you say.
For obvious reasons, I resist the temptation to take up your invitation to discuss the aspects with which I disagree, despite having (literally) decades of experience engaging in arguments whilst retaining respect for people expressing a view with which I disagree.
@gruntius I agree, and thank you for speaking out on the original post. It is shocking and upsetting that people can hold such views, yet alone feel they can post them on ssiw, such a friendly forum.
(My bee post was a lame attempt to move the tone back to something light-hearted on that thread, but I am pleased @Aran has opened up this thread, where it feels appropriate to express support)
I see two ways forward here - one, you could engage with Geraint via PMs, or two, you could PM me which point of his you would be inclined to take issue and see if I can live with the stress…
I think it’s good to have models on the forum of people engaging respectfully on points of disagreement, but I’m particularly conscious of the potential for heated interaction on this particular topic.
I would love for a PM conversation with both @david-thomas-1 and @Pererin because at the moment I’ve twice had what, in my opinion, boils down to “I disagree with you but I’m not telling you why”.
Thank you for your offer but, based upon what I’ve seen, your caution is well-founded and I don’t think it’s worth either your time or the stress.
I could readily understand if there was a ‘No Politics & No Religion’ rule, as there is in another specialist forum I moderated for about 8 years. However, I don’t think it’s practical to have a debate/discussion in which one side is free to express opinions while the other is filtered and restricted.
I’m content to leave it and move on.
I’m sorry but I assumed you’d understand what I meant by ‘For obvious reasons’. I meant I wouldn’t pursue the discussion out of respect for Aran’s wishes and mindful of his warnings.
I have no inclination to pursue the discussion by PM, primarily because I don’t think any useful purpose would be served. Just for example: You’ve expressed your views about Christians twice in the past two days; I’m a committed and active Christian.
I didn’t see what David Thomas wrote so I’m not in a position to comment.
Sorry, I can only find one instance where I’ve expressed my views about religion (not just christians) …
“I’m quite intolerant of…
People who don’t show tolerance and compassion for all, especially the ones who call themselves religious. Oh, the hypocrisy!”
I said this because I thought that tolerance and compassion are at the core of any religious dogma and then I see someone saying they believe in god then expressing controversial views against an anti-racist movement.
If you could quote the second instance I’ll be happy to explain. I will stand by my convictions, as it were.
When one side is either expressing potentially racist views or potentially standing up for potentially racist views I have to disagree. Racism will not be tolerated. Explain and convince the moderators how that is not the case and I’m sure they will look differently at it.
You response merely confirms my belief that no useful purpose would be served by trying to discuss any of these matters with you.
I have never held racist views in my entire life, far less express racist views. That is due, to a large extent, to my parents and the way I was brought up. From the age of 7 until 15, we had people staying with us for three weeks each year from (in order) Israel, the Philippines, Tobago, Ghana, Jamaica, Cameroon, Thailand and what was then Bechuanaland (now Botswana). Very unusual indeed, for a child brought up in a small town in South Wales. They were mature students on some sort of community/social work course at University College Swansea. (I was too young to know the name of the course.) They all came back to spend weekends with us from time to time throughout the academic year, one at least once a month.
I have acted against all types of discrimination personally and professionally all my life. I have never just stood by and remained silent - it’s not in my nature to do so. On one occasion early in my career it was at considerable personal cost because the culprit was a senior man who took his subtle and devious revenge after I complained about it to the very top. I expected that to happen (although not the extent nor the duration) but, although I would have preferred not to experience the repercussions, did not regret taking the action I took and would have done precisely the same again in the same circumstances.
I mention these things, merely as examples of a lifetime’s course of conduct, and to point out that your suggestion that I wish to make racist comments now (I’m 69) is not only offensive but utterly absurd - even allowing for all your potentially(s). That said, I’m not even remotely surprised. It is what I was 99% sure would happen.
That’s right Pererin. I will not be taking part in any so called discussion on here when I have already been accused of being a racist by others on here for expressing doubts about the motives of BLM which I see as a political movement not an anti racist one. I can’t see any value in discussing these points with others who are so quick to throw accusations of racism into the forum before any discussion has even begun. I do not believe that questioning the political motives of BLM is racist but judging by the responses I’ve read others don’t agree. I did email Aran for an explanation of some of his remarks to me about my original post but have not received a reply. I’m not posting anymore about this, time to forget it and move on.
Surely anti-racist and political are synonyms not antonyms? So, yes BLM is a political movement because all BLM movements, as it’s decentralised, argue for the systemic change of society to afford greater equality. That’s also anti-racist.
I genuinely don’t understand the doubts or questioning of “political motives” behind the BLM movement. Surely they are no different to the “political motives” behind Gay Pride, gender equality movements or disability rights movements? That is, to reflect that there are certain groups of people on this earth who are - for reasons beyond their control - not treated with the same respect or fairness that others take for granted, and to ask that this be changed for greater equality.
Personally, I am a) far more concerned about the political motives of groups like Qanon who set out to deny all these groups even the rights they have, let alone the rights they should have and b) dismayed that in this day and age that equal rights groups of any kind should need to exist at all - if there was no discrimination, they wouldn’t have to.
I’m sorry that you may have misunderstood, I’ve never once suggested that you have, or even wish to, make racist comments. Your original post was seemingly advocating the right of someone else to say something worthy of censorship even if, in your own words, you didn’t see what they wrote. Hence all the “potentially(s)”. As you know, free speech doesn’t give someone freedom from repercussions. I’m sorry if I’ve completely misread that but I obviously wasn’t the only one.
@david-thomas-1 your original, since deleted, post of “I’m quite intolerant of … the BLM agenda…” did come across as controversial and I understand your unwillingness to discuss it further but maybe in hindsight a discussion would have cleared up any confusion as to your incentives for writing it in the first place. Or was it, like a few other commemts in that post, and in the words of one of this site’s moderators, “phrased in a way intended to rile”?
Hi David - I haven’t received an email - I’d be happy to answer a PM on the forum, as I have done already with Pererin…
This thread is right on the verge.
You ALL need to step up a notch in terms of friendly, polite engagement, discussing ideas NOT individuals, and not making sweeping generalisations.
At the moment, you’re all clearly sparring with each other, and everyone is looking ready to take offence or write off the ‘other’ side at the drop of a hat.
Having said that, I know several of the individuals commenting in here, and have had positive interactions with others, so I know there is the potential for an SSiW-type FRIENDLY interaction here.
Any further posts that don’t seem to me to be making an effort to be friendly will be deleted without warning.
