UK Politics: Johnsons Hoaxy Yurt North of Hadrian's Wall

[Chaircat Meow]

58 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yeah, but it's you who brought the numbers into it, I'm afraid. So the onus is on you to quantify. If 2,000 isn't enough, how many are enough? What's a 'reasonable proportion' and for that matter, who are the 'people in whose interest the building was named'? Students, presumably, but what about alumni? Staff? Former staff? The people of Edinburgh?

You can't dismiss the objections as not enough of the right sort of people to matter, and then refuse to define what is enough and who the right sort of people are, is my point.

Not the way arguments work I'm afraid. You were the one who cited the petition. As petitions are a numbers game it is absurd to say I brought numbers into it. 

I originally asked for evidence as to how many black and non-white students might find this offensive. You responded 'check out the petition.' As the petition doesn't provide any evidence as to how many BAME students found the name offensive, as we don't know who signed it, and the numbers who signed it are tiny, it fails to prove your point. Asking me to pull a number out of the air is pure distraction from your failure to show the people you claim are offended by this are. 

If the petition had garnered 2,000 signatures from the UoE it would have been some kind of barometer of relevant opinion yes.  But really any kind of respectable opinion poll of students or maybe young BAME people on this issue would have served as some kind of evidence.

[Clueless Northman]

2 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Hmmm.... you know, extreme examples do get over-used (Godwin and all that), but the bolded does beg the question: If rather than being very mediocre (at best) Hitler had been a brilliant artist instead, would you make the same argument for him? (And if not, where exactly do you draw the line?) 

You mean, if Hitler was a successful and brilliant artist with the same heinous ideas, instead of being a world leader and a mass murderer? Well, I would judge his paintings on his own merit as much as possible and try not to let his ideas to influence that judgment too much. Because in this case it's the artist's achievements which should matter. If he was a great artist and the genocidal world leader he was, then of course his main importance would be the political / military one and I'd judge him on his mass-murdering militaristic expansionist policies, not on his paintings.

 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Moreover, even if it were true that these views were held by 'pretty much everyone' (it's not true), Hume literally made his name as a man willing to challenge orthodoxy. It's not credible to excuse his racism, therefore, by claiming he was merely reflecting orthodox thought.

Were his unorthodox views those on races, or on reason and causality?

Besides, it's not just that Hume was a racist when most of society was racist - that's obvious and the enlightened few won't make said society less racist. It's also that right now, at this very moment, most human beings are racist - even if they're just a minority in some countries and societies.

[Gorn]

13 hours ago, Clueless Northman said:

Yes. And him having been a racist doesn't mean he wasn't brilliant. At the end of the day, brilliant people like him were quite rare, one out of millions, when pretty much everyone before the mid-20 th century was racist, and still most of humans since then still were and are. Or should I stop thinking that Wagner was a great composer and, at the same time, a raging egotistical megalomaniac racist asshole? Does Caravaggio being a thug if not a murderer makes him less of a great painter? Should it even reduce the amazement we draw from his works? I can consider people to be total jerks and insufferable scum at some level, and to be absolutely great at their job, at bringing new ideas, technologies, works of art, and ultimately, to me, the former is of little importance, as long as it doesn't negatively influence the latter. There are too many who are just the former with barely any redeeming qualities, and too few of the latter who would pass purity tests for me to be picky - and most probably for mankind as a whole to be too picky.

While I can agree with this to an extent, there is a line where famous person's crimes outweigh his accomplishments, and it's a subjective line for every person. For example, I will never watch another Woody Allen movie again, especially since themes of his work are inextricably linked from his crimes (I won't even bother saying "alleged").

To me, Hume doesn't cross that line, since he did no more than share the prejudices common to his time. On the other hand, Columbus (perpetrator of genocide) or Colston (slaver) do cross it, and should not be celebrated. But again, the exact position of that line, and the weight placed on various accomplishments and crimes, is different for different people.

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Not the way arguments work I'm afraid. You were the one who cited the petition. As petitions are a numbers game it is absurd to say I brought numbers into it. 

Now this is just misrepresenting what happened, I'm afraid. Here's what you said:

On 9/14/2020 at 11:27 AM, Chaircat Meow said:

And I would be very interested to know how many students were genuinely upset by this and to what extent university staff 'anticipated' concerns that were held by relatively few people.

And here's my response:

On 9/14/2020 at 12:34 PM, mormont said:

Well, check out the petition, then. But how many students need to be upset for this to be valid? 10? 100? 10,000? This idea that concerns are only valid if a certain threshold is reached is fraught with difficulties, IMO. If the concern is valid, then it's valid.

You've very clearly introduced the idea that there is a threshold under which these concerns can be dismissed: not enough of the right sort of people are upset. I've responded by saying if that's your concern, you should check out the only source of data that we have - there are no opinion polls, to my knowledge - but also by rejecting the very idea that such a threshold is important.

Implicit in your criticism is the assumption that because the petition is open, it is not safe to assume that the signatories are the 'right sort of people' - which you've suggested is (current?) students and particularly BAME students. You duck the question of whether alumni and others are not important too, or why we should dismiss the opinions of others, or why we need a certain amount of people to have this concern, which was my actual response to your point above.

But whatever. We've thrashed that particular horse to death. I remain of the opinion that there's a good case for taking this step, you remain in your opinion that it's fine to airily dismiss genuine and serious concerns about Hume's evident racism as 'very silly'. Let's leave it there.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

 you remain in your opinion that it's fine to airily dismiss genuine and serious concerns about Hume's evident racism as 'very silly'. Let's leave it there.

Haha, sentences like this which attempt to appear fair minded and sensible.. but are in reality, incredibly leading and a sharp snide dig. I find them so amusing. Congrats.

[Soylent Brown]

It's sums things up pretty well though, doesn't it?

It's great for you and Chaircat that you apparently don't care about racism as it doesn't affect you, but have you no empathy at all, can you not consider how others might feel about it?

Why are you so invested in having statues of slavers remain, of having offensive-to-some building names stay unchanged?

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

It's sums things up pretty well though, doesn't it?

It's great for you and Chaircat that you apparently don't care about racism as it doesn't affect you, but have you no empathy at all, can you not consider how others might feel about it?

Why are you so invested in having statues of slavers remain, of having offensive-to-some building names stay unchanged?

Racism does affect me. 

Which is why I find it rather frustrating that the focus of movements about combating racism is generally on things which don't combat racism, or whose affect is so absolutely minimal as to be irrelevant, or even worse, to turn the issue of combating racism into a partisan one that not everyone agrees with. 

[Soylent Brown]

So you'd prefer to see an all-or-nothing approach being taken? Surely small steps help us progress to where we want to be, too? Slower than is ideal, but still.

And let's face it, the people who are against combating racism are racists. They haven't been converted because a statue they've probably never seen before has been taken down, they were like that to begin with.

[Heartofice]

30 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

So you'd prefer to see an all-or-nothing approach being taken?

No I just don't advocate for a 'nothing' approach which is what most of this really is. 

Quote

Surely small steps help us progress to where we want to be, too? Slower than is ideal, but still.

Call it a small step is being generous if you ask me. It also suggests that is having some effect and is moving the progress forward. I'd suggest it might actually be pushing things backwards.
 

Quote

And let's face it, the people who are against combating racism are racists. They haven't been converted because a statue they've probably never seen before has been taken down, they were like that to begin with.

 

The difference here is that you take an issue like 'combating racism' which pretty everyone agrees on and place the battleground where you suddenly make people have to decide which side of the fence they sit on.
Now suddenly someone who both is not a racist and at the same time takes pride in their British identity and history and tradition suddenly has to choose. Guess what, some people are going to choose a way you don't like and it doesn't make them racist either. If the war on racism is really a war on historic statues then you've already lost a load of people who would have been happy to make an effort. 

I think on top of that it really minimises the entire argument and  focuses on these complete side issues. What are the actual solutions to combat racism in the UK, I think everyone wants to get on board with those.. but when the best solution protesters can come up with is to pull down some 200 year old statues, change some song lyrics, then it makes them look like they are complaining about nothing and haven't got a clue what they are doing. 

 

[Soylent Brown]

No, I'm sorry. If someone finds themselves getting upset over the removal of a statue of a slaver, they absolutely are a dyed in the wool, bona fide racist.

The are more than enough great things that have been accomplished by Britons throughout the ages that we don't need to celebrate our talented racists or paedophiles or murderers.

As far actual solutions go, I think one thing that would go a long way to combat racism is not having the current government actively promoting bigotry through their anti-immigrant zealotry.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Soylent Brown said:

No, I'm sorry. If someone finds themselves getting upset over the removal of a statue of a slaver, they absolutely are a dyed in the wool, bona fide racist.

The are more than enough great things that have been accomplished by Britons throughout the ages that we don't need to celebrate our talented racists or paedophiles or murderers.

As far actual solutions go, I think one thing that would go a long way to combat racism is not having the current government actively promoting bigotry through their anti-immigrant zealotry.

But whatever. We've thrashed that particular horse to death. I remain of the opinion that there's a good case for what I've said, you remain in your opinion that it's fine to airily dismiss genuine and serious concerns about the removal of statues as racist.  Let's leave it there.

[Soylent Brown]

The serious concerns that if our network of statues is tampered with, the magical powers they transmit won't be effective anymore and people will turn racist overnight, having shown no previous tendencies?

Or is it that if a historical figure doesn't have their own statue, did they even actually exist?

[Chaircat Meow]

 

1 hour ago, Soylent Brown said:

It's sums things up pretty well though, doesn't it?

It's great for you and Chaircat that you apparently don't care about racism as it doesn't affect you, but have you no empathy at all, can you not consider how others might feel about it?

Why are you so invested in having statues of slavers remain, of having offensive-to-some building names stay unchanged?

I did ask for evidence, any kind of evidence really, as to what BAME students do think about this.

It is actually the anti-Hume side who have been insisting that what BAME students feel about this isn't important. Now, I don't think it would settle the argument if it turned out lots of BAME students did want the building renamed but I certainly think it is highly relevant to a discussion. It is absurd to claim it is offensive to ask BAME students to study in the tower if you think it doesn't matter whether they themselves do feel offended or not.  But that's mormont's position. 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

The serious concerns that if our network of statues is tampered with, the magical powers they transmit won't be effective anymore and people will turn racist overnight, having shown no previous tendencies?

Like the serious concern that racism is being magically powered by a bunch of statues that nobody knew existed?

[Soylent Brown]

I guess that answers my question. I mean, if you need poll results to consider how someone might feel about something, then yes, no empathy at all.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

I guess that answers my question. I mean, if you need poll results to consider how someone might feel about something, then yes, no empathy at all.

So guesswork is better than actually asking people. Riiiiight.

[Soylent Brown]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Like the serious concern that racism is being magically powered by a bunch of statues that nobody knew existed?

No one is saying that though, whereas according to you these statues are of vital importance.

Why are you so enamoured with statues of shitty people? Should we get some statues up of Harold Shipman and Fred West too? Or would you like to suggest your own personal favourite racists, paedophiles and murders? I think we might need a poll.

[Soylent Brown]

Just now, Heartofice said:

So guesswork is better than actually asking people. Riiiiight.

Perhaps look up the word empathy? It's a foreign concept, no doubt, but give it a go anyway.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Soylent Brown said:

No one is saying that though, whereas according to you these statues are of vital importance.

 

So if statues are not important, why pull them down? 

Quote

Perhaps look up the word empathy? It's a foreign concept, no doubt, but give it a go anyway.

Do you genuinely believe you know what a person thinks or feels about something so correctly that you don't think actually asking them is important? This is pretty hilarious. 

[Soylent Brown]

20 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So if statues are not important, why pull them down? 

 

Because they're lionising a racist/slaver? Why do you think that all statues should be left as they are?

With regard to your silly empathy comment, I'm not claiming to be able to read minds, just that I can understand how others might feel. This is all alien to you though, apparently. Or are you willfully misunderstanding yet again?

 

Seriously, why is it so important to you that statues of shitty human people are left as they are?