UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[Ostroeuropa]

This is grotesque philistinism on the level of ISIS destruction of historical monuments because it doesn't align with their ideology. I am ambivalent on the monarchy, but would never support the destruction of historical monuments and artifacts alluding to them.

Statues are intended to glorify. The monarchy, as an institution, should not be glorified.

We disagree as to the purpose of statues, and your attempt to act like there is an objective meaning behind a piece of art is foolhardy.

[South Reinkalistan]

Statues are intended to glorify. The monarchy, as an institution, should not be glorified.

We disagree as to the purpose of statues, and your attempt to act like there is an objective meaning behind a piece of art is foolhardy.

In what world is this:

Not intended to glorify?

[North German Realm]

Yes. It did a lot of terrible things, and those parts should be demonized. That doesn't mean its history should be viewed -inside the UK itself- from a perspective other than that of the British People. The statue of some Slaver being removed by the people of Bristol is just a demonstration that their perspective does not see that guy as someone deserving of having a Statue erected.

From a certain perspective the danelaw was really about cultural enrichment of the local Anglo-Saxon population.

While that's historically not really accurate, given the actual nature of the Danelaw, I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with anything I said.

[South Reinkalistan]

From a certain perspective the danelaw was really about cultural enrichment of the local Anglo-Saxon population.

While that's historically not really accurate, given the actual nature of the Danelaw, I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with anything I said.

From what I've seen Loben post, I think it's evident you shouldn't take much of what he says seriously.

[Loben The 2nd]

While that's historically not really accurate, given the actual nature of the Danelaw, I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with anything I said.

From what I've seen Loben post, I think it's evident you shouldn't take much of what he says seriously.

Stay angry if it’s that important to you, I guess.

[Ostroeuropa]

We disagree as to the purpose of statues, and your attempt to act like there is an objective meaning behind a piece of art is foolhardy.

In what world is this:

Not intended to glorify?

A world where the urinal exhibit has taken place and changed peoples understanding of what art is. I suggest you learn about it. An object has no meaning outside of its contextual environment.

I also note that your position, and the far-lefts position in general, is on the face of it entirely inconsistent.

When calling for their removal it's because such statues impact popular understanding in a negative and racist way, and so removing them helps to tackle racism. (I.E, they present a message to the public you disagree with).

When it's noted you can provide context by having other exhbibits, but can't provide context by destroying historical monuments, and thus this message you are alleging is being transmitted can be changed, suddenly "Statues don't communicate messages compared to books".

In which case, what's the problem?

It seems that your understanding of statues changes based on whatever allows you to call for their removal, almost like you have a goal and are working backwards to justify it with whatever argument comes to hand. Almost like your real goal is hostility to the west, white people, and so on, and all of this is merely a series of excuses and rationalizations.

[South Reinkalistan]

In what world is this:

(Image)

Not intended to glorify?

A world where the urinal exhibit has taken place and changed peoples understanding of what art is. I suggest you learn about it.

I also note that your position, and the far-lefts position in general, is on the face of it entirely inconsistent.

When calling for their removal it's because such statues impact popular understanding in a negative and racist way, and so removing them helps to tackle racism. (I.E, they present a message to the public you disagree with).

When it's noted you can provide context by having other exhbibits, but can't provide context by destroying historical monuments, and thus this message you are alleging is being transmitted can be changed, suddenly "Statues don't communicate messages compared to books".

In which case, what's the problem?

It seems that your understanding of statues changes based on whatever allows you to call for their removal, almost like you have a goal and are working backwards to justify it with whatever argument comes to hand. Almost like your real goal is hostility to the west, white people, and so on, and all of this is merely a series of excuses and rationalizations.

I think it's fair to say that whatever wishy-washy perception of art you can conjure doesn't detract from the ostensible fact that this statue is intended for the glorification of a monarch. Most of the time, when people build an expensive statue of a leader or monarch, it's usually intended as a glorification. The statues of Victoria stand as a representation of this country's colonial legacy, the inherent injustice of monarchy, and the oppression it has inflicted upon the world at large -- and, by any reasonable measure, it's glorifying.

My stance is rather simple. Building statues costs money and teaches us nothing. Furthermore, statues that glorify things that really shouldn't be glorified should be torn down. It's a symbolic gesture against the willing neglect our nation displays towards our past, and how this impacts our future. My opposition to the glorification of racism does not mean I suddenly hate white people and the west. You're attempting to demonise my views to legitimise your own.

[Jakker]

Who would get endangered there? True things written on a piece of stone, what's the harm there?
(but that example assumes, you did care even one bit about your grandma, it's hard to make examples of insensitivity to insensitive persons)

Not like it's really worth having this discussion about value of history and cultural identity here, not surprised at all some would try to defend that vandalism here, afterall, the mindset of those vandals isn't to far detached from the general mindset often seen in this forum. If you guys were less lazy you could have been out there with them, have some selfies, vandalize some statues of historical figures you know little about, and generally have a good time after some stressful and boring weeks caused by that virus pandemic limiting your access to getting an education and personal freedumbs.

No need to personally insult other players to get your point across. Unofficial warning for flaming and flamebaiting. Please try to be mindful of avoiding that in the future.

[Loben The 2nd]

What inherent injustice of monarchy?

[South Reinkalistan]

What inherent injustice of monarchy?

You know, the fact that someone is somehow entitled to be Head of State because of who their parents are/were.

[Ostroeuropa]

A world where the urinal exhibit has taken place and changed peoples understanding of what art is. I suggest you learn about it.

I also note that your position, and the far-lefts position in general, is on the face of it entirely inconsistent.

When calling for their removal it's because such statues impact popular understanding in a negative and racist way, and so removing them helps to tackle racism. (I.E, they present a message to the public you disagree with).

When it's noted you can provide context by having other exhbibits, but can't provide context by destroying historical monuments, and thus this message you are alleging is being transmitted can be changed, suddenly "Statues don't communicate messages compared to books".

In which case, what's the problem?

It seems that your understanding of statues changes based on whatever allows you to call for their removal, almost like you have a goal and are working backwards to justify it with whatever argument comes to hand. Almost like your real goal is hostility to the west, white people, and so on, and all of this is merely a series of excuses and rationalizations.

I think it's fair to say that whatever wishy-washy perception of art you can conjure doesn't detract from the ostensible fact that this statue is intended for the glorification of a monarch. Most of the time, when people build an expensive statue of a leader or monarch, it's usually intended as a glorification. The statues of Victoria stand as a representation of this country's colonial legacy, the inherent injustice of monarchy, and the oppression it has inflicted upon the world at large -- and, by any reasonable measure, it's glorifying.

My stance is rather simple. Building statues costs money and teaches us nothing. Furthermore, statues that glorify things that really shouldn't be glorified should be torn down. It's a symbolic gesture against the willing neglect our nation displays towards our past, and how this impacts our future. My opposition to the glorification of racism does not mean I suddenly hate white people and the west. You're attempting to demonise my views to legitimise your own.

"Wishy washy".
It's the overwhelming consensus of anyone who knows what they're talking about on the subject. An object has no meaning outside of the context it is placed in. The intent of the artist is also not very relevant compared to how the art is perceived, and if we're so focused on intent (there's another of those sudden inconsistencies), then why do you care so much about historical racists given that their intent was not to be evil jackasses?

Why does the intent of the artist matter to you, but not the intent of the subject?

Because again, it seems like you just so happen to make whatever argument and suddenly hold whatever values or opinions allows you to be hostile to white people and their history.

Does intent matter, or doesn't it?
Is the main thing the impact on people, or isn't it?

What is it you actually believe?

[Celritannia]

Injuring police officers is indeed wrong, but that's a small minority.
So the UK should deny its act in the Atlantic Slave Trade?
The racism is here just as much as the US.

AS NCR has mentioned, the statue of Churchill has been sprayed by graffiti multiple times before this.
Again, I highly doubt these will be to the same degree as the statue in Bristol. Worrying over nothing.

No, memes are not damaging to the culture, there no evidence. Nor is there any evidence to suggest YA novels have damaged society, or video games cause violence. Those are opinions with no grounded evidence. You are pulling at straws to find a fault, when the fault is simply systematic racism.
Also I was using the video games argument to compare to your unfounded claim that YA novels have increased these ideals of protests, so it is relevant.

I think a claim like 'racism is as bad in the UK as it is in the US' is in greater need of sources than 'YA popular culture has had an effect on young people' ?

I doubt anyone has done a study on the latter - for anecdotal evidence look at the proliferation of protest signs featuring popular YA franchises; the well-known inability of many young people to recognise e.g. Biblical allusions and instead speak of things in relation to Harry Potter; the culture wars happening within the publishing world (been going on for a few years now.)

If you recognise that culture can affect people's political beliefs I don't see why it's such a stretch to suggest that basically the most successful publishing phenomenon ever and its numerous also successful descendants (esp. on the big screen) have had an effect on the cohort of the population they were marketed to and most popular with? But this is a stupid argument to be having.

I never said anything even remotely like 'the UK should deny its role in the transatlantic slave trade' ? If you want to argue with my position feel free, but there's no need to just invent positions for me and then get mad at them. As for 'worrying over nothing' I take your point because I used to be exactly the same lol, I will just say that if you think for a minute you're outside of the tent pissing in you should prob be made aware asap that we're both inside of a much bigger tent (;

Considering the UK still has an air of racism, the 2 points are not the same.

Funny how you mention HP, despite the fact people have criticised JK Rowling for her anti-trans stance.
Again, Star Wars is still part of the culture, so it isn't modern YA novels. And in fact, less people are reading now anyway.

I'm not saying it cannot affect people. What I am saying is, the correlation between modern culture and these protests is unfounded. Using some quote of a popular series does not mean it is the major reason people are now protesting. It's a silly comparison.

Alright, maybe I jumped the gun, but the removal of the statue was due to people not liking the idea of a slaver getting recognition.
How come no other statues have been torn down then? While Churchill was a racist prick, his statues will not be torn down.

[Loben The 2nd]

What inherent injustice of monarchy?

You know, the fact that someone is somehow entitled to be Head of State because of who their parents are/were.

Annnnnnd the head of state which irc in the UK is a.....ceremonial role.

Of a monarchy that has more or less existed for slightly less then a thousand years.

And you, assuming you’re British, wish to change this why?

[South Reinkalistan]

I think it's fair to say that whatever wishy-washy perception of art you can conjure doesn't detract from the ostensible fact that this statue is intended for the glorification of a monarch. Most of the time, when people build an expensive statue of a leader or monarch, it's usually intended as a glorification. The statues of Victoria stand as a representation of this country's colonial legacy, the inherent injustice of monarchy, and the oppression it has inflicted upon the world at large -- and, by any reasonable measure, it's glorifying.

My stance is rather simple. Building statues costs money and teaches us nothing. Furthermore, statues that glorify things that really shouldn't be glorified should be torn down. It's a symbolic gesture against the willing neglect our nation displays towards our past, and how this impacts our future. My opposition to the glorification of racism does not mean I suddenly hate white people and the west. You're attempting to demonise my views to legitimise your own.

"Wishy washy".
It's the overwhelming consensus of anyone who knows what they're talking about on the subject. An object has no meaning outside of the context it is placed in. The intent of the artist is also not very relevant compared to how the art is perceived, and if we're so focused on intent (there's another of those sudden inconsistencies), then why do you care so much about historical racists given that their intent was not to be evil jackasses?

A statue of Victoria in a society where the kind of racism and injustice her reign perpetuated still leaves its footprint today...? Yeah, even in context I still don't think it's the best thing to have around. Furthermore, I think you'd have a hard time justifying how Victorian England didn't "intend to be" racist and imperialist.

You know, the fact that someone is somehow entitled to be Head of State because of who their parents are/were.

Annnnnnd the head of state which irc in the UK is a.....ceremonial role.

Of a monarchy that has more or less existed for slightly less then a thousand years.

And you, assuming you’re British, wish to change this why?

It's a position that still bears immense privilege and stature granted upon merit of birth. It is, categorically, corrupt.

[Loben The 2nd]

And you’re surprised that being born into a monarchy comes with immense privilege why?

[South Reinkalistan]

And you’re surprised that being born into a monarchy comes with immense privilege why?

I'm not surprised. I just object to it.

[Loben The 2nd]

And you’re surprised that being born into a monarchy comes with immense privilege why?

I'm not surprised. I just object to it.

You and a dozen other people?

[South Reinkalistan]

I'm not surprised. I just object to it.

You and a dozen other people?

That's an argument ad populum -- popular support for a notion does not alone impact the validity of said notion.

[Celritannia]

You and a dozen other people?

That's an argument ad populum -- popular support for a notion does not alone impact the validity of said notion.

There are more important political issues than the need to remove the Monarchy.

[Ostroeuropa]

"Wishy washy".
It's the overwhelming consensus of anyone who knows what they're talking about on the subject. An object has no meaning outside of the context it is placed in. The intent of the artist is also not very relevant compared to how the art is perceived, and if we're so focused on intent (there's another of those sudden inconsistencies), then why do you care so much about historical racists given that their intent was not to be evil jackasses?

A statue of Victoria in a society where the kind of racism and injustice her reign perpetuated still leaves its footprint today...? Yeah, even in context I still don't think it's the best thing to have around. Furthermore, I think you'd have a hard time justifying how Victorian England didn't "intend to be" racist and imperialist.

Annnnnnd the head of state which irc in the UK is a.....ceremonial role.

Of a monarchy that has more or less existed for slightly less then a thousand years.

And you, assuming you’re British, wish to change this why?

It's a position that still bears immense privilege and stature granted upon merit of birth. It is, categorically, corrupt.

It intended to be imperialist but did not intend the injustice behind it, and rather focused on the positive aspects they believed arose. Same for the racism.
Similarly, the context you're arguing there can nonetheless be altered through the addition of other monuments, not through the destruction of current ones.

And again;
The intent of the artist is also not very relevant compared to how the art is perceived, and if we're so focused on intent (there's another of those sudden inconsistencies), then why do you care so much about historical racists given that their intent was not to be evil jackasses?

Why does the intent of the artist matter to you, but not the intent of the subject?

Because again, it seems like you just so happen to make whatever argument and suddenly hold whatever values or opinions allows you to be hostile to white people and their history.

Does intent matter, or doesn't it?
Is the main thing the impact on people, or isn't it?

[Ostroeuropa]

You and a dozen other people?

That's an argument ad populum -- popular support for a notion does not alone impact the validity of said notion.

This presumes some objective set of values on which society should be based. That's nonsense. There is only popular support for certain values and that's all the legitimacy they can have. The argumentum ad populum fallacy only really applies within a value set.

I.E, it is not an argumentum ad populum to note that 99% of people don't value freedom.

It is an argumentum ad populum to say that within the context of a framework, say, science, the popular opinion is what decides the matter.

"We don't care about freedom" isn't a fallacy. "We have popularly decided what freedom means" might be.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

That's an argument ad populum -- popular support for a notion does not alone impact the validity of said notion.

There are more important political issues than the need to remove the Monarchy.

Like the fact that British nuclear industry will be half-owned by a slaver-genocider like the PRC in a few years.

[Ostroeuropa]

There are more important political issues than the need to remove the Monarchy.

Like the fact that British nuclear industry will be half-owned by a slaver-genocider like the PRC in a few years.

Doing something about that doesn't fit one of the criteria our politics is based on.

It wouldn't be profitable to do anything about, and it doesn't let us hate white people or men and be hostile to them. So neither wing will do anything about it.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Funny story is that those who disagree with you will believe your take to be sentimental and irrational, based on guilt and so on. You criticise that I am making myself some final arbiter but then you are continually pretending to speak from some universal position of rationality, a characteristically liberal move.

Your belief is that I am trying to silence black history, whereas I believe that minorities and their tame liberals are trying far more than to allow their ideas to be heard but instead to marginalise and not permit stories told from the point of view of whites. You are stating opinion very thinly masked with constant rhetorical claims that any other position is abstract, sentimental or irrational. Ironically this shares a lot of ground with which the black history lot criticised the formerly mainstream versions of history back when the liberal was supporting those ideas. The liberal tries to speak from the position of the universal because it allows him to permit other people to have their say but he then denigrates all other opinions for not meeting his enlightened "objective" standards, which of course would entail agreeing with what he has already decided since he has created the "objective" in his own image.

At the risk of perpetuating a back-and-forth:

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

This is proving a fairly non-productive discussion. The argument form you have been using seems to be little more than emotion-baiting, in which you repeatedly and without evidence paint your conception of history as the embodiment of "logic" (therefore good) and any other as the embodiment of emotion (therefore bad). To borrow an American phrase I'm rather fond of, you're serving nothingburgers.

To repeat myself again; you seem to be saying that history must be adjusted since it has been unfairly neglecting the stories of minorities. Though I disagree with it, you can hold this position, but it is not "neutral" or "unemotional". You are making a fairness argument, which tends to have both logical and emotional components. Which is fine, but you're repeatedly telling us that it's not what you're doing while we can plainly see that you are doing it. You may regard what you suggest as a re-adjustment towards a golden mean of "objectivity", but it is neither this nor "undoubtedly necessary". Others will believe we have already "skewed the other way" towards a malignant cultural hatred of white Britons that far exaggerates the extent of our "crimes", of a nature that empires white black or yellow have perpetuated for millennia and continue to do so today.

You seem to regard the bias you perceive in history as an affront to your vision of Britain and feel that we need to address our heritage in a way that engages with the complaints and the privilege you believe comes with it. You are arguing from an ideological basis on the notion of fairness, which is not so far from the other side arguing that things have gone too far and need to be set right. This is why your appeals to objectivity and rationality, of being half-in the argument but also being above it, do not ring true and are somewhat frustrating. You deny the "silly" constructs of others, but then pose your own in the middle of the picture and try to smuggle them past as objective facts, as if WokeLiberalMan has some unique pseudo-spiritual connection to the world of true forms.

[Celritannia]

At the risk of perpetuating a back-and-forth:

Our history is predominately portrayed from the white British perspective. While taking into account the political realities of the British Empire, we must acknowledge that our perspectives are skewed by this bias. Through education, through media, through every level in which British history can be portrayed, it will invariably change how we think and view our history. It is undoubtedly necessary that we must review this and take a more wary stance when it comes to how we portray and perceive history. Could this be used to skew it the other way? Maybe. But is it better than doing nothing? Yes. I'll view it with scepticism, as I do most things, but it's clear that your view is predicated on heritage, something that is, yes, abstract. As shown by your language, you believe some rather nasty things about minorities -- the idea that they have "tame liberals", as if they're puppeteering liberalism to enforce a supposedly uniform minority agenda. You're fighting what you perceive to be an affront to your culture and history with affronts to minority culture and history. This is not, and is never, the way to get your views across.

This is proving a fairly non-productive discussion. The argument form you have been using seems to be little more than emotion-baiting, in which you repeatedly and without evidence paint your conception of history as the embodiment of "logic" (therefore good) and any other as the embodiment of emotion (therefore bad). To borrow an American phrase I'm rather fond of, you're serving nothingburgers.

To repeat myself again; you seem to be saying that history must be adjusted since it has been unfairly neglecting the stories of minorities. Though I disagree with it, you can hold this position, but it is not "neutral" or "unemotional". You may regard what you suggest as a re-adjustment towards a golden mean of "objectivity", but it is not "undoubtedly necessary". Conversely others will believe we have already "skewed the other way" towards a malignant cultural hatred of white Britons that far exaggerates the extent of our "crimes", of a nature that empires white black or yellow have perpetuated for millennia and continue to do so today.

You seem to regard the bias you perceive in history as an affront to your vision of Britain and feel that we need to address our heritage in a way that engages with the complaints and the privilege you believe comes with it. You are arguing from an ideological basis on the notion of fairness, which is not so far from the other side arguing that things have gone too far and need to be set right. This is why your appeals to objectivity and rationality do not ring true and are somewhat frustrating. These are the narrative of the ideologue who claims to be disinterestedly watching all the other ideologues squabbling in the pit while being "above" it because WokeLiberalMan is uniquely capable of speaking from the universal.

Another question could be asked which is, should the former European Colonial powers give up their modern day wealth and advancements simply because they were built from it's treatment of their colonies?
The answer would be no. People living in these countries like the luxuries we have today, built from their imperial conquests and possessions, but no one would get rid of the advancements we have.