Is it left wing to tolerate crack dealers?
- Thread starter TeeJay
- Start date
likesfish said:
The majority of violent crime is carried out by people who have been drinking in pubs. People who have been drinking in pubs are also easily the most intimdating folk to encounter on the street. Perhaps we should ban drinking in pubs, then? Jesus, I swear some of you have no grasp of logic *at all.*
durruti02 said:
Well they certainly brought a lot of much-needed money into that community, and I can assure you that the police crackdown was not welcomed by anybody. I haven't read the book to which you refer, but the LES was a thriving place in the '80's, and certainly not "destroyed." There *isn't* much past Avenue C, only Avenue D, which is still mostly housing projects, and the yuppies do indeed give it a wide berth. Most of the old-style punks and radicals would go there though, and anywhere else on the LES.
likesfish said:if i'd or toby had come out with the gem that most drugdealers are black how long before i'd have been banned
.
Jesus Christ. I didn't say "most," I said that drug dealers are *disproportionately* black, which is a truth undeniable by anybody who understands what "disproportionately" means. A group that evidently does not include yourself. Actually, as I've said before, this is an interesting point. What conclusion do we draw from the *fact* that drug dealers are disproportionately black? Must we not reach one of two possible conclusions, to wit: (a) black people are inherently more disposed to drug dealing, or (b) people become drug dealers because of social deprivation. I put it to you that one of these two conclusions *must* be drawn from this fact. I draw conclusion (b). How about you?
Blagsta said:
I never said it was the answer. However, the majority of people born into the poorer end of society do not form a drug addiction.
In my experience they are the people most likely to hold those who do in contempt.
It is the attitudes of those that put the interests of the perpetrators of crime, or those who choose the path of addiction, before those who become their victims that goes a long way towards explaining why radical politics is held in contempt by the vast majority of those they are meant to be aimed at.
phildwyer said:
Nonsense again. I have based what I've said on here from the attitudes I encounter from ordinary working class people (not 'old-style punks and radicals') who live in the kind of areas most blighted by the drugs epidemic of the past fifteen or twenty years.
phildwyer said:
That it just a statement, nothing more. And a bit laughable coming from somebody who bases his view on what goes on among the bohemians of Manhatten's lower east side (or wherever you said it was.)
As we know, most of Britain is modelled on Manhatten's lower east side....
"Bragging how he knows how the niggers feel the cold....
....and the slums' got so much soul...."
Maybe instead of the 'me and da bredren' posturing, you could explain why you choose to racialise this argument?
If the BNP didn't have people like you to rail against they'd have to make a cardboard cutout of you. (Perhaps they already have....)
phildwyer said:
....and the slums' got so much soul...."
Maybe instead of the 'me and da bredren' posturing, you could explain why you choose to racialise this argument?
If the BNP didn't have people like you to rail against they'd have to make a cardboard cutout of you. (Perhaps they already have....)
LLETSA said:
Do you have any idea how patronizing you're being? "Ah yes, I understand how these ordinary working-class johnnies think, I've spoken to 'em, dontcha know, and seen them on televsion too. They all agree with me! They're not stupid, if you disregard the funny accents..."
LLETSA said:
Let me get this straight, because I don't want to accuse you of anything unjustly. You wrote the above in response to Jo/Joe's question: "Should anti-social behaviour be tolerated more if it comes from a person of a particular colour?" So you're saying that anti-social behaviour among people of colour *is* being tolerated, and that's why the BNP is gaining support? I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to read it. Please clarify if i'm mistaken.
phildwyer said:
If you call growing up in an inner-city area and being exposed on a daily basis to the views of those around me patronising to them, then I suppose that, yes, I am indeed patronising.
Most people who were able have left that area behind now. It was possible to see the way it was likely to end up years ago. Those who were unable to do so (usually the elderly and vulnerable) are now virtual prisoners in their own homes for large part of the day, thanks largely to the activities of the kind of people you romanticise. Go and subject them to your idealising of their tormentors and see who they think is patronising them.
phildwyer said:
Not exactly. But for 'radicals' to be identified with the kind of views that appear to make excuses for the bad behaviour of certain types of people, just because of the colour of their skin, is quite clearly one reason why the propaganda of the BNP currently has the kind of audience in white working class communities, that 'radical' politics does not.
'It's the way it is, suckers'
bristol_citizen
Well-Known Member
It's "trickle down", stupid!LLETSA said:
Similar threads
