Is anyone here so woke that..........

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Is anyone here so woke that..........

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 7 of 13 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Mapletree Croydon 04 Apr 22 8.54am
Originally posted by cryrst Apologies for what? Something people did over a 200 odd years ago. That being the case why arnt Germans forever begging forgiveness, I mean that was less than 100 years ago. Jamaicans are asking for reparations from the slave trade. Should that happen and why? As with weinstein, floyd, hrh Andrew,blm etc It's all about the money. Oh for goodness sake Don't tell me you've never heard of Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Do you live in a yurt?
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 04 Apr 22 8.54am

Originally posted by cryrst

Apologies for what? Something people did over a 200 odd years ago. That being the case why arnt Germans forever begging forgiveness, I mean that was less than 100 years ago.
Jamaicans are asking for reparations from the slave trade.
Should that happen and why?
As with weinstein, floyd, hrh Andrew,blm etc
It's all about the money.

Oh for goodness sake

Don't tell me you've never heard of Vergangenheitsbewältigung. Do you live in a yurt?

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 22 8.56am
Originally posted by Mapletree If only you could read I made it clear I have no desire to erase history, quite the opposite I just can see why people object to having a statue of a slave trader looking down upon them all self important like. They should be items of curiosity in a museum not icons of our great cities. How about if it were a modern slaver? Say one who manipulates asylum seekers into the sex trade but is not caught doing anything illegal. Is that still fine? Edited by Mapletree (03 Apr 2022 10.42pm) But it's not, so why introduce that into the conversation? If you wander about town being bothered by statues looking down at you, then I would suggest that it is you that have the problem You know full well that statue bashing is just a symptom of a bigger issue. Its name is mass immigration and the erosion of British culture. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 8.57am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Apr 22 8.56am

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by Mapletree

If only you could read

I made it clear I have no desire to erase history, quite the opposite

I just can see why people object to having a statue of a slave trader looking down upon them all self important like. They should be items of curiosity in a museum not icons of our great cities.

How about if it were a modern slaver? Say one who manipulates asylum seekers into the sex trade but is not caught doing anything illegal. Is that still fine?

Edited by Mapletree (03 Apr 2022 10.42pm)

But it's not, so why introduce that into the conversation?

If you wander about town being bothered by statues looking down at you, then I would suggest that it is you that have the problem

You know full well that statue bashing is just a symptom of a bigger issue. Its name is mass immigration and the erosion of British culture.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 8.57am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 22 8.59am
In another thread, the recent documentary on the way people like Savile, Harris, Gadd and Hall were regarded 40/50 years ago, and how it has changed so much since, was discussed. Here we have a thread about "cancel culture", and the removal of statues to slavers, and others, who are now disapproved of. People believe that our history should not be tampered with, just because our attitudes have changed Savile had several public monuments erected in his honour, a street in Scarborough was named Savile’s View. There was a Savile’s Hall in Leeds and a wooden statue of Savile stood outside the Scotstoun Leisure Centre in Glasgow. Savile was buried in a grave with a £4,000 headstone set above it bearing his image and listing his charitable works, and a gold plaque was put up on his former home. They were all removed, or changed. Or, if preferred, cancelled. No-one objected. People were so appalled at what was revealed about him that it was accepted without question. Does anyone now think that was wrong, and it should have been objected to? Savile did do charitable work, as a cover for his other activities. Much as the slavers acquired public approval via acting as benefactors. Savile was a man of his era and part of our history, whether we like it, or not. I make no comment either way. I am just wondering if there is an element of hypocrisy here. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 22 8.59am

In another thread, the recent documentary on the way people like Savile, Harris, Gadd and Hall were regarded 40/50 years ago, and how it has changed so much since, was discussed.

Here we have a thread about "cancel culture", and the removal of statues to slavers, and others, who are now disapproved of. People believe that our history should not be tampered with, just because our attitudes have changed

Savile had several public monuments erected in his honour, a street in Scarborough was named Savile’s View. There was a Savile’s Hall in Leeds and a wooden statue of Savile stood outside the Scotstoun Leisure Centre in Glasgow. Savile was buried in a grave with a £4,000 headstone set above it bearing his image and listing his charitable works, and a gold plaque was put up on his former home.

They were all removed, or changed. Or, if preferred, cancelled. No-one objected. People were so appalled at what was revealed about him that it was accepted without question.

Does anyone now think that was wrong, and it should have been objected to? Savile did do charitable work, as a cover for his other activities. Much as the slavers acquired public approval via acting as benefactors. Savile was a man of his era and part of our history, whether we like it, or not.

I make no comment either way. I am just wondering if there is an element of hypocrisy here.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 04 Apr 22 9.06am
Originally posted by Mapletree Nope I just see the scale of what happened and am appalled. As were the Victorians. Opposition to slavery was the main evangelical cause from the late 18th century, led by William Wilberforce (1759–1833). The cause organized very thoroughly, and developed propaganda campaigns that made readers cringe at the horrors of slavery. The same moral fervour and organizational skills carried over into most of the other reform movements. Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837, only four years after the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire. The anti-slavery movement had campaigned for years to achieve the ban, succeeding with a partial abolition in 1807 and the full ban on slave trading, but not slave ownership, which only happened in 1833. It took so long because the anti-slavery morality was pitted against powerful economic interests which claimed their businesses would be destroyed if they were not permitted to exploit slave labour. I believe that you are now trying to cancel the massive efforts undertaken by the Victorians. I say remember your history and learn from it. Follow in the footsteps of those brave Victorians and let us not forget. I guess you would rather do so. And also the Holocaust really wasn't that bad was it... The four people charges with toppling the statue were all white and from Bristol by the way. Interestingly a jury agreed with what they had done, rather surprisingly, and acquitted them despite pretty damning evidence. So who got the zeitgeist right then, you or those young people? [Link] In which case it was the Georgians (or Hanoverians if you prefer), not the Victorians..... A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 04 Apr 22 9.06am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Nope

I just see the scale of what happened and am appalled. As were the Victorians.

Opposition to slavery was the main evangelical cause from the late 18th century, led by William Wilberforce (1759–1833). The cause organized very thoroughly, and developed propaganda campaigns that made readers cringe at the horrors of slavery. The same moral fervour and organizational skills carried over into most of the other reform movements.

Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837, only four years after the abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire. The anti-slavery movement had campaigned for years to achieve the ban, succeeding with a partial abolition in 1807 and the full ban on slave trading, but not slave ownership, which only happened in 1833.

It took so long because the anti-slavery morality was pitted against powerful economic interests which claimed their businesses would be destroyed if they were not permitted to exploit slave labour.

I believe that you are now trying to cancel the massive efforts undertaken by the Victorians. I say remember your history and learn from it. Follow in the footsteps of those brave Victorians and let us not forget.

I guess you would rather do so. And also the Holocaust really wasn't that bad was it...

The four people charges with toppling the statue were all white and from Bristol by the way. Interestingly a jury agreed with what they had done, rather surprisingly, and acquitted them despite pretty damning evidence. So who got the zeitgeist right then, you or those young people?

[Link]

In which case it was the Georgians (or Hanoverians if you prefer), not the Victorians.....

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 22 9.10am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle In another thread, the recent documentary on the way people like Savile, Harris, Gadd and Hall were regarded 40/50 years ago, and how it has changed so much since, was discussed. Here we have a thread about "cancel culture", and the removal of statues to slavers, and others, who are now disapproved of. People believe that our history should not be tampered with, just because our attitudes have changed Savile had several public monuments erected in his honour, a street in Scarborough was named Savile’s View. There was a Savile’s Hall in Leeds and a wooden statue of Savile stood outside the Scotstoun Leisure Centre in Glasgow. Savile was buried in a grave with a £4,000 headstone set above it bearing his image and listing his charitable works, and a gold plaque was put up on his former home. They were all removed, or changed. Or, if preferred, cancelled. No-one objected. People were so appalled at what was revealed about him that it was accepted without question. Does anyone now think that was wrong, and it should have been objected to? Savile did do charitable work, as a cover for his other activities. Much as the slavers acquired public approval via acting as benefactors. Savile was a man of his era and part of our history, whether we like it, or not. I make no comment either way. I am just wondering if there is an element of hypocrisy here. Clearly, it is difficult to retain a commemoration to a man who was found guilty of child abuse during our lifetime. If he had been around 300 years ago and his sins only came to light now, then time might have allowed us to balance his crimes against his good deeds. In Saville's case, it could be argued that his charity work was at least to some degree a front to facilitate access to his victims. Another key factor is that Saville broke the law, whereas historical slave traders didn't. [ Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 10.48am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Apr 22 9.10am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

In another thread, the recent documentary on the way people like Savile, Harris, Gadd and Hall were regarded 40/50 years ago, and how it has changed so much since, was discussed.

They were all removed, or changed. Or, if preferred, cancelled. No-one objected. People were so appalled at what was revealed about him that it was accepted without question.

I make no comment either way. I am just wondering if there is an element of hypocrisy here.

Clearly, it is difficult to retain a commemoration to a man who was found guilty of child abuse during our lifetime.

If he had been around 300 years ago and his sins only came to light now, then time might have allowed us to balance his crimes against his good deeds.
In Saville's case, it could be argued that his charity work was at least to some degree a front to facilitate access to his victims.
Another key factor is that Saville broke the law, whereas historical slave traders didn't.

[

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 10.48am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 04 Apr 22 9.17am
Originally posted by Mapletree Nobody is tearing a statue down FFS Fake news from the angry dinosaur It’s not fake news that the abolitionist Livingstone was included in a list of “problematic” statues for no other reason than a job he had as a 12 year old. Using this Six Degrees of Separation logic Joseph Paxton worked for Joseph Yates, a plantation owner, so presumably Crystal Palace should be censured?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

04 Apr 22 9.17am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Nobody is tearing a statue down FFS

Fake news from the angry dinosaur

It’s not fake news that the abolitionist Livingstone was included in a list of “problematic” statues for no other reason than a job he had as a 12 year old.
Using this Six Degrees of Separation logic Joseph Paxton worked for Joseph Yates, a plantation owner, so presumably Crystal Palace should be censured?

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 04 Apr 22 9.26am
Originally posted by becky In which case it was the Georgians (or Hanoverians if you prefer), not the Victorians..... Yes, I meant to say the victorians then picked up the outrage post abolition [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 04 Apr 22 9.26am

Originally posted by becky

In which case it was the Georgians (or Hanoverians if you prefer), not the Victorians.....

Yes, I meant to say the victorians then picked up the outrage post abolition

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 04 Apr 22 9.33am
Originally posted by Mapletree Nobody is tearing a statue down FFS Fake news from the angry dinosaur I was referring to your post: "The four people charges with toppling the statue were all white and from Bristol by the way. Interestingly a jury agreed with what they had done, rather surprisingly, and acquitted them despite pretty damning evidence. So who got the zeitgeist right then, you or those young people?" [The quote is from your post where you also, randomly play the Holocaust card: "And also the Holocaust really wasn't that bad was it..."] Edited by georgenorman (04 Apr 2022 9.34am)
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

04 Apr 22 9.33am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Nobody is tearing a statue down FFS

Fake news from the angry dinosaur

I was referring to your post:

"The four people charges with toppling the statue were all white and from Bristol by the way. Interestingly a jury agreed with what they had done, rather surprisingly, and acquitted them despite pretty damning evidence. So who got the zeitgeist right then, you or those young people?"

[The quote is from your post where you also, randomly play the Holocaust card: "And also the Holocaust really wasn't that bad was it..."]

Edited by georgenorman (04 Apr 2022 9.34am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 22 9.42am
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Clearly, it is difficult to retain a commemoration to a man who was found guilty of child abuse during our lifetime. If he had been around 300 years ago and his sins only came to light now, then time might have allowed us to balance his crimes against his good deeds. In Saville's case, it could be argued that his charity work was at least to some degree a front to facilitate access to his victims. Another key factor is that Saville broke the law, whereas historical slave traders didn't. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 9.11am) Technically, he wasn't found guilty, as he died before this all came to light. So you think that the passage of time can diminish the scale of the crimes and enhance the value of the good deeds? That may be the reality, but isn't it just a tad hypocritical? If people are being posthumously pardoned for things they did which were illegal in their day, but legal today (see "Turing's" law), should not the reverse attitude also be acceptable? For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 22 9.42am

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Clearly, it is difficult to retain a commemoration to a man who was found guilty of child abuse during our lifetime.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 9.11am)

Technically, he wasn't found guilty, as he died before this all came to light.

So you think that the passage of time can diminish the scale of the crimes and enhance the value of the good deeds?

That may be the reality, but isn't it just a tad hypocritical?

If people are being posthumously pardoned for things they did which were illegal in their day, but legal today (see "Turing's" law), should not the reverse attitude also be acceptable?

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman 04 Apr 22 9.57am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Technically, he wasn't found guilty, as he died before this all came to light. So you think that the passage of time can diminish the scale of the crimes and enhance the value of the good deeds? That may be the reality, but isn't it just a tad hypocritical? If people are being posthumously pardoned for things they did which were illegal in their day, but legal today (see "Turing's" law), should not the reverse attitude also be acceptable? As someone or other will object to absolutely any statue, we might as well take them all down to avoid the civil disturbances.
Alert a moderator to this post

georgenorman

04 Apr 22 9.57am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Technically, he wasn't found guilty, as he died before this all came to light.

So you think that the passage of time can diminish the scale of the crimes and enhance the value of the good deeds?

That may be the reality, but isn't it just a tad hypocritical?

If people are being posthumously pardoned for things they did which were illegal in their day, but legal today (see "Turing's" law), should not the reverse attitude also be acceptable?

As someone or other will object to absolutely any statue, we might as well take them all down to avoid the civil disturbances.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 04 Apr 22 10.59am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Technically, he wasn't found guilty, as he died before this all came to light. So you think that the passage of time can diminish the scale of the crimes and enhance the value of the good deeds? That may be the reality, but isn't it just a tad hypocritical? If people are being posthumously pardoned for things they did which were illegal in their day, but legal today (see "Turing's" law), should not the reverse attitude also be acceptable? True. We have just accepted en masse that he was guilty. And no, it is not a reversible attitude. The battle has already been won. Slavery was abolished. Before that, it was legal. One day, someone with an attitude like yours might want to retrospectively vilify someone for eating meat or using a petrol car. It is ridiculous and you know it. All discussion about it now is entirely about political and social power. It is in some cases a feeble minded attempt to get compensation. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 11.02am)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

04 Apr 22 10.59am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Technically, he wasn't found guilty, as he died before this all came to light.

So you think that the passage of time can diminish the scale of the crimes and enhance the value of the good deeds?

That may be the reality, but isn't it just a tad hypocritical?

If people are being posthumously pardoned for things they did which were illegal in their day, but legal today (see "Turing's" law), should not the reverse attitude also be acceptable?

True.
We have just accepted en masse that he was guilty.

And no, it is not a reversible attitude. The battle has already been won. Slavery was abolished. Before that, it was legal.

One day, someone with an attitude like yours might want to retrospectively vilify someone for eating meat or using a petrol car. It is ridiculous and you know it.

All discussion about it now is entirely about political and social power. It is in some cases a feeble minded attempt to get compensation.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 11.02am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 22 12.55pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger True. We have just accepted en masse that he was guilty. And no, it is not a reversible attitude. The battle has already been won. Slavery was abolished. Before that, it was legal. One day, someone with an attitude like yours might want to retrospectively vilify someone for eating meat or using a petrol car. It is ridiculous and you know it. All discussion about it now is entirely about political and social power. It is in some cases a feeble minded attempt to get compensation. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 11.02am) That's the whole point! Homosexuality was illegal, now it isn't. That battle was won and those previously convicted have been pardoned. Thus, history has been revisited. If it can be done in one direction, why not the other? I am not arguing it should be. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy involved. It would only be relevant to meat eating, or driving a petrol car, if they became illegal. None of this discussion is about politics, social power or compensation. It's about the possible hypocrisy involved in accepting the removal of some historical artefacts, but not others. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 04 Apr 22 12.55pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

True.
We have just accepted en masse that he was guilty.

And no, it is not a reversible attitude. The battle has already been won. Slavery was abolished. Before that, it was legal.

One day, someone with an attitude like yours might want to retrospectively vilify someone for eating meat or using a petrol car. It is ridiculous and you know it.

All discussion about it now is entirely about political and social power. It is in some cases a feeble minded attempt to get compensation.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (04 Apr 2022 11.02am)

That's the whole point! Homosexuality was illegal, now it isn't. That battle was won and those previously convicted have been pardoned. Thus, history has been revisited.

If it can be done in one direction, why not the other?

I am not arguing it should be. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy involved. It would only be relevant to meat eating, or driving a petrol car, if they became illegal.

None of this discussion is about politics, social power or compensation. It's about the possible hypocrisy involved in accepting the removal of some historical artefacts, but not others.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 7 of 13 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Is anyone here so woke that..........

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors