Reply to: Reuters Fact check: London’s Cenotaph war memorial was not defaced on 3 June

[darmstadt]

Well if you bring them all up and have a read I'm sure you could argue that, yes. His entire schtick was mildly-offensive satire opinion pieces.

Is he ignorant, lazy and a relatively crap prime minister - absolutely - but if you're going to criticise someone it's better use proper facts & political activities instead of useless twitter level crap out that utterly diminishes the impact of actual racism/homophobia when we see it.

So you think that Johnson was being satirical in every single article in which he used offensive language and yet has never apologised? You need to take a good look at yourself...

[thelastrosbif]

So all the other articles he has written using racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language were also satirical? This is a man who has been sacked for lying in the press and parliament. If you believe Johnson then you probably believe Trump, Bolsonaro, Hopkins, Farage, etc...and all the stories in the Sunday Sport

Well if you bring them all up and have a read I'm sure you could argue that, yes. His entire schtick was mildly-offensive satire opinion pieces.

Is he ignorant, lazy and a relatively crap prime minister - absolutely - but if you're going to criticise someone it's better use proper facts & political activities instead of useless twitter level crap out that utterly diminishes the impact of actual racism/homophobia when we see it.

[darmstadt]

Hear me out but, maybe, do you think *might* possible that an obviously satirical article, whose sole purpose was to mock the establishment whilst they were flying around playing "white saviours" in Africa, perhaps would have used inflammatory language to make a point?

So all the other articles he has written using racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. language were also satirical? This is a man who has been sacked for lying in the press and parliament. If you believe Johnson then you probably believe Trump, Bolsonaro, Hopkins, Farage, etc...and all the stories in the Sunday Sport

[thelastrosbif]

Did Chris Morris turn out to be a paedophile enabler or was that Brasseye thing another cunning ruse? Damn it's all so confusing!

[thelastrosbif]

While the UK has a racist PM, nothing will get changed:

There's plenty more of his racist, sexist and homophobic comments out there....

Hear me out but, maybe, do you think *might* possible that an obviously satirical article, whose sole purpose was to mock the establishment whilst they were flying around playing "white saviours" in Africa, perhaps would have used inflammatory language to make a point?

[vetran]

Even easier. Change slopes to steps. Get H back to edumacate us all.

yea hah!

[ladymuck]

Slippery slopes should be banned. From here on in, all slopes are to applied be with slip-proof coating. Until slip-proof coatings are banned, at which point, slopes will be allowed to go upwards only.

Even easier. Change slopes to steps. Get H back to edumacate us all.

[ladymuck]

Simple argument: reductio ad absurdum fallacy to avoid the issue. Is that the next line of defence after abandoning the slippery slope?

Yep!

[Old Greg]

Would those be the Catholics that persecuted everyone else?

That would be the Churchill who signed the Atlantic charter?

As I said, arguments on either side. There's no "right" answer. It's a matter of judgment.

Having said that, I doubt that all of the Catholics who were persecuted were engaged in persecuting others. Most were probably just getting on with their lives. Same for the Protestants persecuted by Mary I.

[vetran]

Let's take a few case that have been mentioned here.

Edward Colston - on one hand he was a philanthropist, on the other he was a slave trader
Henry VIII - on one hand he founded the Church of England, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics and treated his wives badly
Cromwell - on one hand he overthrew Charles I, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics
Churchill - on one hand he led the UK to victory in WW2, on the other hand he led the UK as a power suppressing its colonies.

An argument can be made for each of these cases independently to retain or remove statues. There is no slippery slope here. Argue each on its merits.

Would those be the Catholics that persecuted everyone else?

That would be the Churchill who signed the Atlantic charter?

[Old Greg]

Somewhere in Cornwall, can't remember where but may be Mousehole, there is a plaque commemorating the occasion when a number of residents were seized by barbary pirates and, presumably, taken to North Africa to be sold into slavery.

I saw something in the Isles of Scilly IIRC (possibly it was in the museum rather than a plaque).

[Excursion UK]

perhaps if the protesters educated themselves they would realise that africans werent the only victims of the slave trade, its an evil trade for sure but they werent always the victims, indeed they were perpetrators

it doesnt fit with the current narrative, but if people understand this then they may feel less victimised, calm down and act more reasonably

Slavery on the Barbary Coast - Wikipedia

"between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured by Barbary pirates and sold as slaves "

Somewhere in Cornwall, can't remember where but may be Mousehole, there is a plaque commemorating the occasion when a number of residents were seized by barbary pirates and, presumably, taken to North Africa to be sold into slavery.

[Paralytic]

Let's take a few case that have been mentioned here.

Edward Colston - on one hand he was a philanthropist, on the other he was a slave trader
Henry VIII - on one hand he founded the Church of England, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics and treated his wives badly
Cromwell - on one hand he overthrew Charles I, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics
Churchill - on one hand he led the UK to victory in WW2, on the other hand he led the UK as a power suppressing its colonies.

An argument can be made for each of these cases independently to retain or remove statues. There is no slippery slope here. Argue each on its merits.

On that basis, I demand the destruction of the statue of Paul Gascoine

Paul Gascoigne and Jonathan Edwards statues unveiled - Chronicle Live

[Old Greg]

I suppose the issue many people have is a mob bypassing that argument for each case and just tearing it down. I think that's where the slippery slop slopes.

That is one issue that people have.

The other issues appear to be "what about Henry VIII?" and similar stuff.

[woohoo]

Let's take a few case that have been mentioned here.

Edward Colston - on one hand he was a philanthropist, on the other he was a slave trader
Henry VIII - on one hand he founded the Church of England, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics and treated his wives badly
Cromwell - on one hand he overthrew Charles I, on the other hand he persecuted Catholics
Churchill - on one hand he led the UK to victory in WW2, on the other hand he led the UK as a power suppressing its colonies.

An argument can be made for each of these cases independently to retain or remove statues. There is no slippery slope here. Argue each on its merits.

I suppose the issue many people have is a mob bypassing that argument for each case and just tearing it down. I think that's where the slippery slop slopes.