Lewis Hamilton
Discussion
Rumblestripe said:
No
If you cannot get behind a simple statement that "Black Lives Matter", you are not being honest with yourself. There is no "more" on the end of BLM, if you are not black you should not be threatened by it. If you think it is "divisive" you are guilty of being "played" by those who would divide us. When you point to people tagging on to the "movement" like perhaps far left groups that is what those who wish to maintain division want you to look at. Does a racist in the Tory Party make it a racist movement? Of course not and a Marxist sympathising with BLM doesn't make BLM "Far Left". I doubt that anyone would describe Mr. Hamilton as a "leftie", he is no doubt a very rich man. He is using his position in the spotlight to try to make a difference for those who are not so lucky.
It is a familiar excuse of the right, when a poor person cries for a fairer society it is "the politics of envy" when a rich person wants the same thing they are hypocrites.
Come on wake up.
One race human, be it.
Fairer society? What's unfair? We all have access to free education, yes? Free healthcare, yes? What needs changing?If you cannot get behind a simple statement that "Black Lives Matter", you are not being honest with yourself. There is no "more" on the end of BLM, if you are not black you should not be threatened by it. If you think it is "divisive" you are guilty of being "played" by those who would divide us. When you point to people tagging on to the "movement" like perhaps far left groups that is what those who wish to maintain division want you to look at. Does a racist in the Tory Party make it a racist movement? Of course not and a Marxist sympathising with BLM doesn't make BLM "Far Left". I doubt that anyone would describe Mr. Hamilton as a "leftie", he is no doubt a very rich man. He is using his position in the spotlight to try to make a difference for those who are not so lucky.
It is a familiar excuse of the right, when a poor person cries for a fairer society it is "the politics of envy" when a rich person wants the same thing they are hypocrites.
Come on wake up.
One race human, be it.
Edited by faa77 on Sunday 26th July 20:46
faa77 said:
Rumblestripe said:
No
If you cannot get behind a simple statement that "Black Lives Matter", you are not being honest with yourself. There is no "more" on the end of BLM, if you are not black you should not be threatened by it. If you think it is "divisive" you are guilty of being "played" by those who would divide us. When you point to people tagging on to the "movement" like perhaps far left groups that is what those who wish to maintain division want you to look at. Does a racist in the Tory Party make it a racist movement? Of course not and a Marxist sympathising with BLM doesn't make BLM "Far Left". I doubt that anyone would describe Mr. Hamilton as a "leftie", he is no doubt a very rich man. He is using his position in the spotlight to try to make a difference for those who are not so lucky.
It is a familiar excuse of the right, when a poor person cries for a fairer society it is "the politics of envy" when a rich person wants the same thing they are hypocrites.
Come on wake up.
One race human, be it.
What exactly is wrong in the UK regarding BLM? What do they want changed? Tell me, I'm all ears. If you cannot get behind a simple statement that "Black Lives Matter", you are not being honest with yourself. There is no "more" on the end of BLM, if you are not black you should not be threatened by it. If you think it is "divisive" you are guilty of being "played" by those who would divide us. When you point to people tagging on to the "movement" like perhaps far left groups that is what those who wish to maintain division want you to look at. Does a racist in the Tory Party make it a racist movement? Of course not and a Marxist sympathising with BLM doesn't make BLM "Far Left". I doubt that anyone would describe Mr. Hamilton as a "leftie", he is no doubt a very rich man. He is using his position in the spotlight to try to make a difference for those who are not so lucky.
It is a familiar excuse of the right, when a poor person cries for a fairer society it is "the politics of envy" when a rich person wants the same thing they are hypocrites.
Come on wake up.
One race human, be it.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/ukblm-fund
jimPH said:
You want to end capitalism? Can you confirm that's what you're advocating needs to change?faa77 said:
What exactly is wrong in the UK regarding BLM? What do they want changed? Tell me, I'm all ears.
Equality of opportunity - Black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as whiteStudies of applications submitted for jobs with matching qualifications and experience found that applicants with typically black or Muslim names were much less likely than those with standard British names to receive a positive response from employers. For every ten positive replies that the British applicant (James or Emily) received, a person with a recognisably African (Akintunde or Adeola) or Pakistani name (Tariq or Yasmin) received only six. Minorities with a west European name (Guillaume, for example) were only slightly less likely than the British to obtain a positive callback.
You OK with that?
Rumblestripe said:
faa77 said:
What exactly is wrong in the UK regarding BLM? What do they want changed? Tell me, I'm all ears.
Equality of opportunity - Black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as whiteStudies of applications submitted for jobs with matching qualifications and experience found that applicants with typically black or Muslim names were much less likely than those with standard British names to receive a positive response from employers. For every ten positive replies that the British applicant (James or Emily) received, a person with a recognisably African (Akintunde or Adeola) or Pakistani name (Tariq or Yasmin) received only six. Minorities with a west European name (Guillaume, for example) were only slightly less likely than the British to obtain a positive callback.
You OK with that?
It is an interesting point prejudgement on name only.
F1GTRUeno said:
I think the problem with the All Lives Matter crowd is they don't realise that whilst they're correct in saying that if many houses are on fire we should put them all out, we only have a finite amount of water in the fire engines.
At that point where you know resources are spread thin do you put out the biggest fire or do you try and apply water equally to all fires regardless of size?
The problem with All Lives Matter is that it's a reaction to something misunderstood as a provocation. At that point where you know resources are spread thin do you put out the biggest fire or do you try and apply water equally to all fires regardless of size?
The #YesAllWomen hashtag (sadly IMO less famous than the #MeToo one) was a reaction to the argument that "not all men" are rapists, sex pests, etc. Pointing out that the important thing for a woman isn't the proportion of men who are a
holes, but rather the frequency with which they experience sexual harrasment.The BlackLivesMatter movement and more recent proactive awareness of just how poorly Black Americans are still treated by the police is not implying that OnlyBlackLivesMatter as some seem to take it (as per ALM), but rather that BlackLivesDOMatter- implying that US society feels that they don't.
It was around the same time that Colin Kaepernick sat out a national anthem and later started taking the knee during the US national anthem, intending it as a silent and respectful protest at how this nation he was expected to revere, was actually quite content to see his kin mistreated. It was a great protest- specific, spontaneous and grassroots. And it cost him his career, making him an icon at the same time as somewhat proving his point that his country wasn't taking the loss of black lives seriously.
Shortly before this time the song Hell You Talmbout went viral, listing the names of Black Americans who had died at the hands of police. Black society in America had had enough.
The 1968 fist in the air was part of a thoughtfully prepared and symbolic protest aimed at raising the problems within American society before a global audience. Again it went down like a bomb and was a brave thing to do.
Now onto Lewis and the current anti racism stuff.
On one hand I see where Lewis is coming from. He's still the only black F1 driver, he's a following of millions, has spent his whole professional life biting his tongue thanks to corporate pressure that doesn't like personality and now global protests against race inequalities and racism in general have exploded globally and noone in his sport is saying anything while his growing legacy affords him the position and capital to speak his mind. He can't stay silent when all this is going on, he just can't. It would be like expecting Kimi and Bottas to stay silent if Russia invaded.
On the other I think he's either got it tonally wrong or is just being cynical. He's appropriating iconic American protest symbols but using them in a different context, he's not joining the others in the unifying "End Racism" message which everyone seems happy to support, but insists on being different from the others with the BLM t-shirt and calling out other drivers for not speaking out. And I still don't know what he's protesting against.
I do wonder at Liberty Media/F1's handling of this though. Football (a sport with long and ongoing issues with racism and tribalism) seems quite happy to show players unified against racism. I was stunned when they cut from the drivers stand against racism to show the Red Bull skydiver instead. That may have been simply operational reasons as I imagine the sponsored skydive at the Red Bull race track was agreed long before, but it certainly added to the awkwardness of the thing.
Not rocking the boat is part of F1's DNA though. The only one I can think of who really did was (ironically since they don't seem friends) Jackie Stewart.
Rumblestripe said:
Equality of opportunity - Black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as white
That doesn't prove racism. You're assuming everything else is equal.Rumblestripe said:
Studies of applications submitted for jobs with matching qualifications and experience found that applicants with typically black or Muslim names were much less likely than those with standard British names to receive a positive response from employers. For every ten positive replies that the British applicant (James or Emily) received, a person with a recognisably African (Akintunde or Adeola) or Pakistani name (Tariq or Yasmin) received only six. Minorities with a west European name (Guillaume, for example) were only slightly less likely than the British to obtain a positive callback.
You OK with that?
Sociology studies conclude people are more-likely to empathise with people of a similar background to themselves.You OK with that?
faa77 said:
Sociology studies conclude people are more-likely to empathise with people of a similar background to themselves.
So you're OK with it?And to whoever asked after job applications from James and Emily in some other country, congratulations you are racist. Try to be honest about it.Your argument amounts to alluding to the possibility that the reverse is happening elsewhere as if that excused your behaviour.
glazbagun said:
Not rocking the boat is part of F1's DNA though. The only one I can think of who really did was (ironically since they don't seem friends) Jackie Stewart.
Stewart was attacked in magazines by commentators on his stance for greater safety in F1. My subscription to Motor Sport came to an end during this diatribe from the higher-ups in the magazine, and I didn't renew it. I took my stand, but the following season I forgave them.I'd love to read their then comments from Jenkinson and Boddy, both of whom were well respected in the sport, and for good reason. It wasn't only them either. I feel certain we would be appalled, but there seemed only a minority were against them, this despite the carnage that F1 was in those days.
Stewart could be a bit of a prig, but his message was clear, and rather obvious; let's stop killing drivers.
On the other hand, I wonder what posters on PH would have said. There would certainly be some who ran with the various magazines who suggested that if the drivers didn't want to risk their lives, didn't want their friends killed, they should go out and try another sport.
The odd thing is, Hamilton and Stewart have a lot in common, at least as youngsters. Stewart's hair was the subject of much comment, as well as his lifestyle, which seemed the very antithesis of the classic F1 driver of the time. It might be difficult to appreciate for those not around at the time, but Jackie was a fashion leader, rather stylish, and fitted in with the young crowd. I know F1 has changed but boy, Jackie has to a much greater extent.
I would imagine that this thread would be slightly oversubscribed if Hamilton called for a strike of drivers. BLM is considered not to be of concern to F1 drivers, perhaps in the same way that safety was not in the 70s. Jackie Stewart is, as much as anyone else, the father of modern F1. Oddly enough, that's why we don't see a plethora of corners named after him at modern F1 circuits. I wonder if BLM will do the same thing for Hamilton.
Rumblestripe said:
And to whoever asked after job applications from James and Emily in some other country, congratulations you are racist. Try to be honest about it.Your argument amounts to alluding to the possibility that the reverse is happening elsewhere as if that excused your behaviour.
You really don't do yourself any credit just screaming "racist" at anything you don't want to hear.vulture1 said:
How do James or Emily's do in Black or Muslim majority countries out of interest?
It is an interesting point prejudgement on name only.
I have been lucky enough and still very lucky to travel the world for my job and one thing I would say is that generally "James or Emily" do better in those countries than the local black or Muslim population. I can safely say that I have never seen white people strugling for jobs in Africa, carribean Islands or Indian ocean islands.It is an interesting point prejudgement on name only.
I think that the reason for it is that because very often "westerners" are sent on missions for their jobs or are hired by Western companies based in those countries. Not sure if this is the only reasons but when talking to local populations, you get a pretty good idea.
faa77 said:
You really don't do yourself any credit just screaming "racist" at anything you don't want to hear.
I didn't. A racist argument was raised, I pointed it out.I'm not trying to "do myself any credit", I'm trying to explain to apparently frightened people why "BLM" is not threatening to white people. In fact unless you are one of the mega rich it will probably be of benefit to you.
As for people "empathising" as an excuse for (in the example I gave) not giving a fair opportunity to someone with a non-european name. I don't know where to go with that. Other than to say that racism and fear of people who are not from our tribe is deeply engrained in our psyche. It comes from a time when if someone approached your village or encampment it was likely that he would be about to rob you or worse. If you don't accept that the bias (empathy if your prefer) is there and make an effort to rise above it then you are part of the problem. To just shrug it off as something that happens everywhere doesn't excuse it. It is a juvenile argument "he did it first" or "he does it too".
faa77 said:
Rumblestripe said:
So you're OK with it?
You're not okay humans empathise with people similar to themselves?If you think it's okay then you, and whatever organisations you're a part of, need to undertake unconscious bias training. No one is perfect, but acknowledging your issues is the first step to progress.
Rumblestripe said:
I didn't. A racist argument was raised, I pointed it out.
I'm not trying to "do myself any credit", I'm trying to explain to apparently frightened people why "BLM" is not threatening to white people. In fact unless you are one of the mega rich it will probably be of benefit to you.
As for people "empathising" as an excuse for (in the example I gave) not giving a fair opportunity to someone with a non-european name. I don't know where to go with that. Other than to say that racism and fear of people who are not from our tribe is deeply engrained in our psyche. It comes from a time when if someone approached your village or encampment it was likely that he would be about to rob you or worse. If you don't accept that the bias (empathy if your prefer) is there and make an effort to rise above it then you are part of the problem. To just shrug it off as something that happens everywhere doesn't excuse it. It is a juvenile argument "he did it first" or "he does it too".
Show me one sign of fear?I'm not trying to "do myself any credit", I'm trying to explain to apparently frightened people why "BLM" is not threatening to white people. In fact unless you are one of the mega rich it will probably be of benefit to you.
As for people "empathising" as an excuse for (in the example I gave) not giving a fair opportunity to someone with a non-european name. I don't know where to go with that. Other than to say that racism and fear of people who are not from our tribe is deeply engrained in our psyche. It comes from a time when if someone approached your village or encampment it was likely that he would be about to rob you or worse. If you don't accept that the bias (empathy if your prefer) is there and make an effort to rise above it then you are part of the problem. To just shrug it off as something that happens everywhere doesn't excuse it. It is a juvenile argument "he did it first" or "he does it too".
Evanivitch said:
No, not really, and certainly not in a professional context.
If you think it's okay then you, and whatever organisations you're a part of, need to undertake unconscious bias training. No one is perfect, but acknowledging your issues is the first step to progress.
Here's an official website of the Australian Government warning about email scams from/associated with Nigeria:If you think it's okay then you, and whatever organisations you're a part of, need to undertake unconscious bias training. No one is perfect, but acknowledging your issues is the first step to progress.
https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams/unexpe...
AustralianGovernment said:
Nigerian scams
Nigerian scams involve someone overseas offering you a share in a large sum of money or a payment on the condition you help them to transfer money out of their country. While these scams originated in Nigeria, they now come from all over the world.
Is it fair to be "bias" opening emails from Nigerian-sounding email accounts, or does that require "unconcious bias training" too?Nigerian scams involve someone overseas offering you a share in a large sum of money or a payment on the condition you help them to transfer money out of their country. While these scams originated in Nigeria, they now come from all over the world.
faa77 said:
F1GTRUeno said:
It's more support the idea of #BLM than it is support for the 'BLM' organisation that deriders call marxist to try and dilute the point or claim ALM again to dilute the point and pretend as if they give a st about anyone but themselves.
BLM has a valid justification in the US, where that guy was needlessly killed by the police.t about anyone but themselves.BLM has absolutely NO justification in the UK. Lefties jumped on a global story to try and get their wishlist (starting with pulling down statues).
Think I'm wrong? Go and look at the BLM marches- Socialist Worker placards, pride, probably anti-austerity/anti-Tories, the usual Antifa brigade.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff