One sub-section of a community cannot fully represent it. Unlike many US protests, this was entirely the young and fit, ie those who are risking others far more than they risk themselves.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:47 pmIt's stuff like this that keeps getting under my skin. The protestors clearly do represent parts of those communities. You keep saying "claim to" and "purport to" as if you don't think the protests are legitimate.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:32 pmWe just don't agree with the risks they are not just taking, but imposing on the public, especially on the communities they purport to represent.
You need to think about this harder. Why are you talking about a disadvantaged group on the one hand, and my personal circumstances on the other? Your attitude was that I should not apply the same language that I have done to everyone else risking others with this pandemic because they were in a marginalised group, and yet when criticised for tone policing a member of a marginalised group for expressing concerns about the impact of their behaviour, you are still talking about personal circumstances. My objections to this protest lie in their refusal to consider the wellbeing of those endangered by their actions, which includes healthcare workers, elderly, disabled and otherwise infirm people, especially in BAME communities. I did not bring my own circumstances into this because they are my main motivation on this, but because they are perhaps an illustrative example of what so many people face with this pandemic. That it is worsening existing inequalities and placing people into intolerable situations.Tone in conversations about racism and responses to it is an important issue, though, as it is with any disadvantaged group. I apologise again for not considering your personal circumstances, but as far as I'm aware they don't apply to other people making similar points in this thread.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:32 pmThis entire blowup occured because you insisted on tone policing a very vulnerable person who has been directly harmed by the pandemic who was concerned about increased risks and harm. The people getting frustrated with your inability to get the point are quite aware it's not just about one thing or another thing, but given the likely small at best - and remember, protests can be counterproductive - effects of the UK protests do not come close to justifying the risks, especially not given the protestors refusal to even slightly modify their protest to protect lives.
For context, I was getting sufficiently sick of BOAF's dismissiveness of concerns that I sent him a DM explaining the time this march that I had to singlehandedly - literally - manage an EDS-caused sternoclavicular separation with morphine, diazepam and a length of old rope.
My own circumstances are not my main motivation in this - my main motivation here is fear of the deaths and suffering a second wave of the virus would cause, especially to the vulnerable - but I think they are a reasonable counter to the rather unpleasant "and who are you to have an opinion on this" attitude we've seen on this thread.
Because it isn't untrue. Because I've seen both the pictures of the protests, and the calls to action that lead to them, with people crammed in to streets like sardines, and chanting en masse, and chants organised in advance. They. Did. Not. Care. Enough. To. Adjust. Their. f.cking. Behaviour. I know you said early on that they were social distancing but the simple fact of the matter is that they were not, and your earlier claims they were do not correspond with reality.Again, why repeat things you know are untrue? Constantly exaggerating does not give the impression of somebody giving the protestors a fair hearing.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2020 1:32 pmespecially not given the protestors refusal to even slightly modify their protest to protect lives.