Lewis Hamilton

[RobGT81]

paulguitar said:

Perhaps as a mixed-race person who has dealt with racism in his life and spends a lot of his time in the USA, he was troubled by a policeman there standing on a citizen's neck until he died.

Is it really that hard to understand?

But he doesn't have a problem with working class white girls being groomed and raped in the UK?

[vdn]

RobGT81 said:

paulguitar said:

Perhaps as a mixed-race person who has dealt with racism in his life and spends a lot of his time in the USA, he was troubled by a policeman there standing on a citizen's neck until he died.

Is it really that hard to understand?

But he doesn't have a problem with working class white girls being groomed and raped in the UK?

This is the typical thicko PH response, quoted for prosperity.

“Because this is happening; why’s he speaking about that...”

Everyone has an issue with girls being groomed; it’s universally accepted that it’s wrong; bar the scumbags who do it. The same isn’t true for black citizens being murdered in broad daylight in America. I’m shocked it’s so hard to understand. Not sure why; I’ve been here long enough.

[paulguitar]

RobGT81 said:

But he doesn't have a problem with working class white girls being groomed and raped in the UK?

He told you that?

[Munter]

vdn said:

Everyone has an issue with girls being groomed;

Well...clearly that's not true. Or it wouldn't happen.

"Everybody" doesn't "anything". There's always someone who thinks something is ok to do/not do. The question is the scale and impact of the "thing" in question and therefore how important it is to any given individual who's aware of it.

You and I both think that a policeman kneeling on the neck of a citizen they have sworn to protect, until that citizen is dead, is wrong. It's even worse if that happens because the citizen happens to be black.

But that cop. At that time. Felt his actions were ok to do, because "something". Or he wouldn't have done it.

The same would be true of gangs grooming kids for whatever sexual/illegal purpose. They feel it's ok to do because "something".

In both cases we need (as a global society, not PH. Because this is just a pointless exercise in time wasting for "weirdos" who like cars), to figure out how to stop any of these wrong "things" being true to that person, and any future person, as best we can, which will not be perfect.

[RobGT81]

paulguitar said:

He told you that?

Well no but apparently people hadn't informed him about their displeasure towards racism so where do we draw the line? Are we all good now everyone has put a black square on instagram?

[vdn]

Munter said:

vdn said:

Everyone has an issue with girls being groomed;

Well...clearly that's not true. Or it wouldn't happen.

"Everybody" doesn't "anything". There's always someone who thinks something is ok to do/not do. The question is the scale and impact of the "thing" in question and therefore how important it is to any given individual who's aware of it.

You and I both think that a policeman kneeling on the neck of a citizen they have sworn to protect, until that citizen is dead, is wrong. It's even worse if that happens because the citizen happens to be black.

But that cop. At that time. Felt his actions were ok to do, because "something". Or he wouldn't have done it.

The same would be true of gangs grooming kids for whatever sexual/illegal purpose. They feel it's ok to do because "something".

In both cases we need (as a global society, not PH. Because this is just a pointless exercise in time wasting for "weirdos" who like cars), to figure out how to stop any of these wrong "things" being true to that person, and any future person, as best we can, which will not be perfect.

I said, but you omitted, ‘except the scumbags doing it’. I could have expanded - but I assumed a level of comprehension that wouldn’t mean I was to list ever factor of who may or may not find it acceptable. I’m sure you understand. I’d hope so.

[mat205125]

Any danger of this thread getting back to being about F1 and Lewis Hamilton?

Pretty sure there'll be threads dedicated to the rest of the planets issues and how its portrayed through mainstream media somewhere else

[Munter]

vdn said:

I said, but you omitted, ‘except the scumbags doing it’. I could have expanded - but I assumed a level of comprehension that wouldn’t mean I was to list ever factor of who may or may not find it acceptable. I’m sure you understand. I’d hope so.

But your opening premise is "everyone" something. Yes you tried to exclude someone from everyone. But you're opening is wrong no matter how you then try to close it off.

Some people who don't groom kids, don't think it's a thing worth worrying about. (They are just white slut girls, they don't matter to anybody I consider important. So why should I care.) In the same way some people who don't kill black people, also don't think it's a thing worth worrying about. (It's not going to be me so....meh)

Starting off with a premise that "everybody thinks X is a bad thing" is so fundamentally wrong to the actual issue that exists within society, that you can't caveat out of it after stating it.

Without seeing that. As a society. We'll fail to solve the fundamental issues that lead to racism/grooming/etc etc in the first place.

Everybody doesn't think the same about whatever you want to bring up. They just don't.

We can't even get people to agree that Covid exists, or the earth is round, or that man went to the moon.

Starting where you did and then defending it, means that you're not grasping the issue. "Everybody knows/believes X" is a form of prejudice in itself. You already decided a thing is fact, and defended it, while contradicting yourself in the same sentence. Having that fundamental type of thought process is what lets people slip through the gaps where we don't look, because why would you, when "Everybody knows/believes X".

[Rumblestripe]

Munter said:

Word soup

[Munter]

Rumblestripe said:

Munter said:

Word soup

I don't want to think about this a different way

Ohh clever.

[vdn]

Rumblestripe said:

Munter said:

Word soup

Indeed; when logic fails the overall tone of a point; target the semantics. Classic and classy stuff.

[Munter]

vdn said:

Indeed; when logic fails the overall tone of a point; target the semantics. Classic and classy stuff.

Nope. You yourself agree that the statement "Everybody thinks X" isn't true. Because you had to caveat your version of it. But you had that thought. It was such a good thought you typed it out into this very forum. Yet. Having that thought means that there is a prejudice within your mind. A nice one perhaps, but it's there.

You, before you consider it, are prejudice to believe that everybody thinks child grooming is wrong. Then you have to step back and add caveats because it's not actually true.

That we have that thought of "Everybody thinks X", is part of the problem we face. It doesn't matter how we then try and justify having that thought. We had it, and it causes a whole load of the issues in society. That this is our fundamental/emotional starting point for dealing with other people, and it's wrong, is not helpful. We need to realise it's there not deny it.

[vdn]

Munter said:

vdn said:

Indeed; when logic fails the overall tone of a point; target the semantics. Classic and classy stuff.

Nope. You yourself agree that the statement "Everybody thinks X" isn't true. Because you had to caveat your version of it. But you had that thought. It was such a good thought you typed it out into this very forum. Yet. Having that thought means that there is a prejudice within your mind. A nice one perhaps, but it's there.

You, before you consider it, are prejudice to believe that everybody thinks child grooming is wrong. Then you have to step back and add caveats because it's not actually true.

That we have that thought of "Everybody thinks X", is part of the problem we face. It doesn't matter how we then try and justify having that thought. We had it, and it causes a whole load of the issues in society. That this is our fundamental/emotional starting point for dealing with other people, and it's wrong, is not helpful. We need to realise it's there not deny it.

So you DID comprehend the tone of my point... but yet still wrote a passage, seemingly now, agreeing with me. Strange.

[Munter]

vdn said:

Munter said:

vdn said:

Indeed; when logic fails the overall tone of a point; target the semantics. Classic and classy stuff.

Nope. You yourself agree that the statement "Everybody thinks X" isn't true. Because you had to caveat your version of it. But you had that thought. It was such a good thought you typed it out into this very forum. Yet. Having that thought means that there is a prejudice within your mind. A nice one perhaps, but it's there.

You, before you consider it, are prejudice to believe that everybody thinks child grooming is wrong. Then you have to step back and add caveats because it's not actually true.

That we have that thought of "Everybody thinks X", is part of the problem we face. It doesn't matter how we then try and justify having that thought. We had it, and it causes a whole load of the issues in society. That this is our fundamental/emotional starting point for dealing with other people, and it's wrong, is not helpful. We need to realise it's there not deny it.

So you DID comprehend the tone of my point... but yet still wrote a passage, seemingly now, agreeing with me. Strange.

But why are you fighting so hard against my point? The tone might be fine. But the thing it exposes, due to how it's written (i.e. that it starts with your the initial premise), is way more interesting, and a far bigger key item to the issue at hand, than the tone of your post.

[lauda]

MarkwG said:

You make some very good & well considered points; with the last one, though, I have a slightly different take. Lewis is one of the first F1 racing drivers from an ethnic minority background. He's also the most successful, not only against that background, but overall. That puts his head well above the parapet, & has made him a target as a result. I've heard, read & challenged, conversation that is based on his colour, rather than his driving. That simply wouldn't happen with a "white" driver. He's also bringing a whole host of new fans to F1; he 's cognisant of that, & when issues like this arise, it's as much to those fans he's framing his comments. For that part of the F1 audience, it would seem bizarre if he didn't say something, & call out those who don't or haven't - other sports have taken a stand, for example, the Liverpool footballers at the weekend. For me, there's nothing unusual or unacceptable in what he's said, or his position. He's an ambassador of the sport, by virtue of his success & the voice he has as a result. For me, it's time everyone stood up & said violence of the sort that led to the death of George Floyd is unacceptable, to say otherwise is tacitly condoning it. If what he said triggers the some of the other drivers to stand up, so be it.

Edited by MarkwG on Wednesday 3rd June 11:29

Yes, I take your point that his race does put him higher above the parapet for those who take issue with the colour of his skin. And criticism which is coming from that viewpoint, whether explicitly or implicitly should always be called out and challenged.

My point was that for most (I hope) of his detractors, it's not his skin colour that's driving the negativity. I remember everyone taking the piss out of David Beckham in the 90s for wearing sarongs and hairbands and that clearly wasn't racially motivated. It's ok to think that Hamilton sometimes makes himself look a bit stupid with the things that he says or does and that doesn't in and of itself make anyone a racist.

And I have no issue whatsoever with Hamilton expressing his personal views on any subject he so chooses. But I'm less comfortable with the idea of being called out as tacitly condoning something through not publicly speaking out against it. Some famous individuals may have taken a conscious decision not to 'do politics' in public and I don't think I'd be happy feeling forced to state the bleeding obvious of the case in point. If I were a politician or an activist or a current affairs journalist, sure. If I was an F1 driver? Not so much.

[SturdyHSV]

Munter, there are too many posts / points for me to quote directly, I just wanted to say that's an interesting perspective I hadn't considered and will attempt to think about it in more detail, so thank you.

EDIT:

To elaborate, as a simple example:

But that cop. At that time. Felt his actions were ok to do, because "something". Or he wouldn't have done it.

This is something I try to consider in various situations at an individual level, but I think I hadn't then further applied this to society in general, which is where I think some more thought would be useful on my part, so yeah, thanks.

Edited by SturdyHSV on Wednesday 3rd June 14:34

[Mr_Thyroid]

lauda said:

Some famous individuals may have taken a conscious decision not to 'do politics' in public and I don't think I'd be happy feeling forced to state the bleeding obvious of the case in point. If I were a politician or an activist or a current affairs journalist, sure. If I was an F1 driver? Not so much.

If something is bleeding obvious how can it be political to state it?

[lauda]

Mr_Thyroid said:

If something is bleeding obvious how can it be political to state it?

Just because something in the political sphere is obvious, doesn't make it any less political. Political isn't a synonym for uncertain or judgemental.

[hammo19]

....word soup

[paulguitar]

Fellas, can we just move along, FFS?