| Visiting America on 17:49 - Mar 28 with 2371 views | StokieBlue |
| Visiting America on 13:10 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
presidents getting directly involved in things like museums seems very bad. but the context here is that the us is currently a hugely divided place. institutions like museums, the arts, universities are pretty much exclusively in the hands of people from one side of that divide. you have a bubble which has become separated off from much of the public. that division - with a single view point represented within those institutions and very little diversity of opinion there - makes those institutions political in the eyes of many americans. part of the lesson is that it is very bad for politicians to meddle in cultural institutions - another part is that it is also bad for those institutions to become so partisan and ideologically narrow that they lose the confidence of a large part of the public. |
If you take this argument to it's logical extension then you'll need to push for a "Museum of Empire" somewhere in South Kensington.
SB |  | |  |
| Visiting America on 18:06 - Mar 28 with 2312 views | BlueBadger |
| Visiting America on 13:10 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
presidents getting directly involved in things like museums seems very bad. but the context here is that the us is currently a hugely divided place. institutions like museums, the arts, universities are pretty much exclusively in the hands of people from one side of that divide. you have a bubble which has become separated off from much of the public. that division - with a single view point represented within those institutions and very little diversity of opinion there - makes those institutions political in the eyes of many americans. part of the lesson is that it is very bad for politicians to meddle in cultural institutions - another part is that it is also bad for those institutions to become so partisan and ideologically narrow that they lose the confidence of a large part of the public. |
Must be horrible out in Stockholm today if ypui're back here trying to offer the Centrist Take on why we shouldn't; just condemn fascist out of hand. |  |
| |
| Visiting America on 20:05 - Mar 28 with 2194 views | lowhouseblue |
| Visiting America on 17:42 - Mar 28 by Herbivore |
Well, that's one take. Your ability to both sides everything is quite something. |
seriously though, being able to see things from varied perspectives and to understand different views is pretty much the key to civilised discussion. in contrast, your ability to dogmatically one side politics is a bit depressing. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Visiting America on 20:30 - Mar 28 with 2164 views | Herbivore |
| Visiting America on 20:05 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
seriously though, being able to see things from varied perspectives and to understand different views is pretty much the key to civilised discussion. in contrast, your ability to dogmatically one side politics is a bit depressing. |
Amazing that someone who basically shills for far right demagogues these days is trying to claim the moral high ground, but that's where we're at I guess. |  |
| |
| Visiting America on 20:32 - Mar 28 with 2170 views | DJR |
| Visiting America on 17:49 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
i agree - as i said the president getting involved in things like museums is bad. but (apologies) can you really have cultural freedom if publicly funded institutions such as these are controlled by one side of a very divided society; if within those institutions there is little in the way of diversity of view; and a large swathe of the public feel ideologically excluded from and alienated from those institutions? shouldn't cultural institutions carry wider public support than from just one side of a political divide?
also - surely it must be possible to express disagreement without mentioning the nazis? |
I don't think things are as black and white as you paint.
The Smithsonian has a wide range of museums to suit many tastes, and I rather doubt, for example, that many people feel alienated from the National Air and Space Museum.
As it is, I can't imagine many white Trump supporters wanting to visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture (which Trump has singled out), but they have the cultural freedom instead to visit the National Museum of American History.
Incidentally, the National Museum of African American History and Culture) was created in 2003 by a Bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Indeed, the concept of a national museum dedicated to African-American history and culture can, according to Wikipedia, be traced back to the second decade of the 20th century. And in a country where freedom is supposedly sacrosanct it is up to those running the museum what they want to put on.
As regards your last sentence, I think I was wholly justified in drawing a historical parallel, which I did not use in disagreement to what you said, but instead as backing up what I said. [Post edited 28 Mar 20:42]
|  | | |
| Visiting America on 21:03 - Mar 28 with 2085 views | Churchman |
| Visiting America on 17:16 - Mar 28 by DJR |
That's a very long but.
For my own part, the idea of governments trying to control what cultural institutions do seems completely at variance with cultural freedom. Indeed, it has shades of what the Nazis did to the Bauhaus movement.
And the problem is, where does it stop? [Post edited 28 Mar 17:32]
|
So according to Sky, Trump ‘has targeted America's best-known museums and charged vice president JD Vance with removing "improper ideology" from the institutions.The president has accused the Smithsonian Institution of promoting "corrosive ideology" as well as "divisive" and "race-centred" ideas’
So whose ideology is proper? What does that halfwit want places to show? Things he approves of? A narrative that shows USAs superiority and greatness? Truth or lies? Given the US has a track record beyond all others of writing their distortions of history I think I know the answer. |  | | |
| Visiting America on 21:12 - Mar 28 with 2067 views | Bent_double |
| Visiting America on 17:49 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
i agree - as i said the president getting involved in things like museums is bad. but (apologies) can you really have cultural freedom if publicly funded institutions such as these are controlled by one side of a very divided society; if within those institutions there is little in the way of diversity of view; and a large swathe of the public feel ideologically excluded from and alienated from those institutions? shouldn't cultural institutions carry wider public support than from just one side of a political divide?
also - surely it must be possible to express disagreement without mentioning the nazis? |
I don't see why people shouldn't be able to reference the nazis, especially as there's so much going on in places like Israel, Russia and now the US which suggests history repeating itself.
Seems to me that the only people who don't want any mention of nazis are those trying to be like them. |  |
| |
| Visiting America on 22:06 - Mar 28 with 1998 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| Visiting America on 21:03 - Mar 28 by Churchman |
So according to Sky, Trump ‘has targeted America's best-known museums and charged vice president JD Vance with removing "improper ideology" from the institutions.The president has accused the Smithsonian Institution of promoting "corrosive ideology" as well as "divisive" and "race-centred" ideas’
So whose ideology is proper? What does that halfwit want places to show? Things he approves of? A narrative that shows USAs superiority and greatness? Truth or lies? Given the US has a track record beyond all others of writing their distortions of history I think I know the answer. |
It is a worrying combination of only wanting the truth to be spoken (noble enough in its own right) and deciding that the truth is what you want it to be and nothing else regardless of evidence. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Visiting America on 22:12 - Mar 28 with 1991 views | StokieBlue |
| Visiting America on 20:05 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
seriously though, being able to see things from varied perspectives and to understand different views is pretty much the key to civilised discussion. in contrast, your ability to dogmatically one side politics is a bit depressing. |
Citing civilised discussion when discussing policies pushed by Trump and his followers is quite the stance.
I assume you saw the video of Taylor-Greene? I assume you've seen Trump and his acolytes dismiss any view which isn't in line with their own?
Why are you only holding one side to this civilised debate stance? Where is the condemnation of Trump and the right for clearly not engaging in civilised debate? Why should people engage in civilised debate when one side is spouting hatred, misinformation and lies?
Utterly bored of the "but both sides" narrative. It's right up there with the "equality of opinions" narrative. Both total rubbish when examined with any form of impartiality.
SB | | | |
| Visiting America on 22:20 - Mar 28 with 1938 views | lowhouseblue |
| Visiting America on 20:30 - Mar 28 by Herbivore |
Amazing that someone who basically shills for far right demagogues these days is trying to claim the moral high ground, but that's where we're at I guess. |
you think everyone who challenges your simplistic world view is "shilling for far right demagogues". that's both rather sad and incredibly narrow minded. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Visiting America on 22:32 - Mar 28 with 1887 views | lowhouseblue |
| Visiting America on 21:03 - Mar 28 by Churchman |
So according to Sky, Trump ‘has targeted America's best-known museums and charged vice president JD Vance with removing "improper ideology" from the institutions.The president has accused the Smithsonian Institution of promoting "corrosive ideology" as well as "divisive" and "race-centred" ideas’
So whose ideology is proper? What does that halfwit want places to show? Things he approves of? A narrative that shows USAs superiority and greatness? Truth or lies? Given the US has a track record beyond all others of writing their distortions of history I think I know the answer. |
"So whose ideology is proper?"
well quite. the question which illustrates the problem. if publicly funded institutions are just presenting one ideology, rather than acknowledging the conflict between different views, something has gone badly wrong. in a highly divided, and divisive, society such as the us at present, having cultural institutions representing one ideology (whichever that may be) is corrosive of public trust and confidence. if you want to understand trump you need to recognise the division that has grown between the ideology enshrined in, and promoted by, 'cultural institutions' and a huge swathe of voters. this isn't a political view on my part, it's a simple statement of how the us has ended up where it is. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Visiting America on 22:41 - Mar 28 with 1850 views | lowhouseblue |
| Visiting America on 22:12 - Mar 28 by StokieBlue |
Citing civilised discussion when discussing policies pushed by Trump and his followers is quite the stance.
I assume you saw the video of Taylor-Greene? I assume you've seen Trump and his acolytes dismiss any view which isn't in line with their own?
Why are you only holding one side to this civilised debate stance? Where is the condemnation of Trump and the right for clearly not engaging in civilised debate? Why should people engage in civilised debate when one side is spouting hatred, misinformation and lies?
Utterly bored of the "but both sides" narrative. It's right up there with the "equality of opinions" narrative. Both total rubbish when examined with any form of impartiality.
SB |
"Why are you only holding one side to this civilised debate stance?"
seriously stokieblue, step outside of twtd, step outside of your bubble, and actually listen to people who don't hold the exact same views as you. set your self the challenge of really, honestly, understanding why they don't agree with you. if even the views i express amaze you, you really badly need to broaden your take on politics. and, by the way, it's perfectly possible to reject the opinions of both trump and you. and i'm very happy to counter your impartiality with my impartiality  | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Visiting America on 22:42 - Mar 28 with 1848 views | StokieBlue |
| Visiting America on 22:32 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
"So whose ideology is proper?"
well quite. the question which illustrates the problem. if publicly funded institutions are just presenting one ideology, rather than acknowledging the conflict between different views, something has gone badly wrong. in a highly divided, and divisive, society such as the us at present, having cultural institutions representing one ideology (whichever that may be) is corrosive of public trust and confidence. if you want to understand trump you need to recognise the division that has grown between the ideology enshrined in, and promoted by, 'cultural institutions' and a huge swathe of voters. this isn't a political view on my part, it's a simple statement of how the us has ended up where it is. |
We are back to having a "Museum of Empire" here though.
Just because ideologies are opposing it doesn't mean they are equal and should be treated as such. It's a deeply flawed view in my opinion and actually counterproductive.
SB | | | |
| Visiting America on 22:46 - Mar 28 with 1798 views | lowhouseblue |
| Visiting America on 22:42 - Mar 28 by StokieBlue |
We are back to having a "Museum of Empire" here though.
Just because ideologies are opposing it doesn't mean they are equal and should be treated as such. It's a deeply flawed view in my opinion and actually counterproductive.
SB |
you may not seem them as equal - equally people with opposite views to yours don't see them as equal. you're absolutely certain you're right - they're absolutely certain they're right. you claim there can be no debate, they probably claim the same. if we want a civilised world we need to negotiate this impasse - and the answer isn't bowing down to you or to 'them'. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Visiting America on 22:47 - Mar 28 with 1794 views | StokieBlue |
| Visiting America on 22:41 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
"Why are you only holding one side to this civilised debate stance?"
seriously stokieblue, step outside of twtd, step outside of your bubble, and actually listen to people who don't hold the exact same views as you. set your self the challenge of really, honestly, understanding why they don't agree with you. if even the views i express amaze you, you really badly need to broaden your take on politics. and, by the way, it's perfectly possible to reject the opinions of both trump and you. and i'm very happy to counter your impartiality with my impartiality |
What a hugely condescending post.
You've also not addressed any of the points I've actually made or any of the points other posters have made. You've just cherry picked bits and repeated yourself.
Further to that you're once again you're missing the point.
If the view isn't supported by evidence then it's simply not as valid no matter how much you think it should be. Not all views are equal and they shouldn't be treated as such. A lot of the problems in the world are because of people being convinced that their view is as valid as anyone else's even when it's easily disproven and you "but both siding" every argument is just perpetuating that.
SB | | | |
| Visiting America on 22:52 - Mar 28 with 1758 views | StokieBlue |
| Visiting America on 22:46 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
you may not seem them as equal - equally people with opposite views to yours don't see them as equal. you're absolutely certain you're right - they're absolutely certain they're right. you claim there can be no debate, they probably claim the same. if we want a civilised world we need to negotiate this impasse - and the answer isn't bowing down to you or to 'them'. |
The current uncivilised world is due to fallacious opinions being given equality.
The fact that you can't see that is very strange. The fact you want to perpetuate it or even increase it is worrying.
There is no debate being had here, if someone tries to counter a point which is clearly wrong with evidence they are shouted down. That is the reality of the situation, not this thought experiment that you seem to be engaged in.
SB [Post edited 28 Mar 22:53]
| | | |
| Visiting America on 22:59 - Mar 28 with 1727 views | lowhouseblue |
| Visiting America on 22:47 - Mar 28 by StokieBlue |
What a hugely condescending post.
You've also not addressed any of the points I've actually made or any of the points other posters have made. You've just cherry picked bits and repeated yourself.
Further to that you're once again you're missing the point.
If the view isn't supported by evidence then it's simply not as valid no matter how much you think it should be. Not all views are equal and they shouldn't be treated as such. A lot of the problems in the world are because of people being convinced that their view is as valid as anyone else's even when it's easily disproven and you "but both siding" every argument is just perpetuating that.
SB |
"A lot of the problems in the world are because of people being convinced that their view is as valid as anyone else's ..."
seriously, stokieblue this is self-awareness, self-awareness this is stokieblue.
i am not being condescending, i am just disagreeing with you. people other than you also believe their views are supported by evidence. there is lots of varied 'evidence' out there, and all evidence needs to be interpreted. people who disagree with you are not stupid, or evil, or dishonest - but they do interpret the world differently. there is not just one way of understanding controversial and difficult social and political questions. jeez you need to go out, and to borrow a david cameron sound bite, hug a centrist. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Visiting America on 23:09 - Mar 28 with 1695 views | StokieBlue |
| Visiting America on 22:59 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
"A lot of the problems in the world are because of people being convinced that their view is as valid as anyone else's ..."
seriously, stokieblue this is self-awareness, self-awareness this is stokieblue.
i am not being condescending, i am just disagreeing with you. people other than you also believe their views are supported by evidence. there is lots of varied 'evidence' out there, and all evidence needs to be interpreted. people who disagree with you are not stupid, or evil, or dishonest - but they do interpret the world differently. there is not just one way of understanding controversial and difficult social and political questions. jeez you need to go out, and to borrow a david cameron sound bite, hug a centrist. |
"jeez you need to go out, and to borrow a david cameron sound bite, hug a centrist."
If that's not being condescending I'm looking forward to you actually being condescending. It should be quite the stuff to behold.
Believing one's views are supported by evidence isn't the same as them being supported by evidence.
But you know all this, you're just trying to wind people up. To claim that people like Trump (who was the initial focal point of this discussion) isn't dishonest is clearly not supported by evidence yet here you are claiming that their evidence needs to be interpreted.
You're in danger of becoming an apologist for some fairly horrible opinions of you continue with this trajectory.
SB | | | |
| Visiting America on 23:25 - Mar 28 with 1665 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Visiting America on 20:05 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
seriously though, being able to see things from varied perspectives and to understand different views is pretty much the key to civilised discussion. in contrast, your ability to dogmatically one side politics is a bit depressing. |
Seriously though if proof was ever needed at how far to the right the so called centre has drifted. |  |
| |
| Visiting America on 23:52 - Mar 28 with 1627 views | Herbivore |
| Visiting America on 22:20 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
you think everyone who challenges your simplistic world view is "shilling for far right demagogues". that's both rather sad and incredibly narrow minded. |
No, just you really. | |
| |
| Visiting America on 09:13 - Mar 29 with 1383 views | DJR |
I posed the question in a post "where does it stop?", but I hadn't realised what Trump has already done in relation to the Kennedy Center, of which he has made himself chair.
Here is a couple of snippets.
"At the beginning of February, US President Donald Trump announced plans to gut the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC, including its chairman David Rubenstein, and installed himself as chairman.
The Kennedy Center’s board of trustees had historically spanned the political spectrum, but Trump removed 18 board members and replaced them with political allies such as Susie Wiles, his chief-of-staff, the Vice President’s wife, Usha Vance, and Fox News presenters Laura Ingraham and Maria Bartiromo.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I have decided to immediately terminate multiple individuals from the Board of Trustees, including the Chairman, who do not share our Vision for a Golden Age in Arts and Culture.
“We will soon announce a new Board, with an amazing Chairman, DONALD J. TRUMP!”
"President Donald Trump offered the board of the Kennedy Center his suggestions for artists to celebrate at its annual Honors ceremony and even offered to host the star-studded event himself.
'I don't want to, but I want this thing to be successful,' he told the board, according to a recording obtained by the Washington Post.
The Honors is the Kennedy Center's biggest event of the year and a massive fundraiser for the arts center. The ceremony, attended by both Republicans and Democrats, pays homage to leaders in the arts.
Trump had his own list of suggestions for who should be honored this year, including Paul Anka, Sylvester Stallone, Johnny Mathis and Andrea Bocelli. All of them supported his presidential campaign.
He also complained about the past honorees, which include Bono, Billy Crystal, Tina Turner, Lin Manuel-Miranda, Johnny Carson, Tom Hanks, and Gloria Estefan.
'In the past, I mean, these are radical left lunatics that have been chosen. I didn't like it. I couldn't watch it. And the host was always terrible,' Trump said."
It will be interesting to see if anyone tries to justify this. [Post edited 29 Mar 9:44]
| | | |
| Visiting America on 09:23 - Mar 29 with 1345 views | NthQldITFC |
| Visiting America on 13:10 - Mar 28 by lowhouseblue |
presidents getting directly involved in things like museums seems very bad. but the context here is that the us is currently a hugely divided place. institutions like museums, the arts, universities are pretty much exclusively in the hands of people from one side of that divide. you have a bubble which has become separated off from much of the public. that division - with a single view point represented within those institutions and very little diversity of opinion there - makes those institutions political in the eyes of many americans. part of the lesson is that it is very bad for politicians to meddle in cultural institutions - another part is that it is also bad for those institutions to become so partisan and ideologically narrow that they lose the confidence of a large part of the public. |
I can't decide whether that sounds more stupid or frightening. |  |
| |
| Visiting America on 10:08 - Mar 29 with 1279 views | lowhouseblue |
| Visiting America on 23:09 - Mar 28 by StokieBlue |
"jeez you need to go out, and to borrow a david cameron sound bite, hug a centrist."
If that's not being condescending I'm looking forward to you actually being condescending. It should be quite the stuff to behold.
Believing one's views are supported by evidence isn't the same as them being supported by evidence.
But you know all this, you're just trying to wind people up. To claim that people like Trump (who was the initial focal point of this discussion) isn't dishonest is clearly not supported by evidence yet here you are claiming that their evidence needs to be interpreted.
You're in danger of becoming an apologist for some fairly horrible opinions of you continue with this trajectory.
SB |
so your tactic here is to claim that i'm defending trump. to be clear, i'm not defending trump i am trying to understand what is going on in america - why trump got elected again and why he has the support that he has. of course, i could just shout slogans about him and post every anti-trump article or news flash, but instead i'm genuinely interested to objectively understand what is really go on. i'm interested in understanding what people who support trump think, why they think it, and if there are bits on which i agree with them then i can even cope with that.
i keep thinking of that more in common report on 'progressive activists' that was posted on here last month. it said that one feature of that group is that they are much less willing than other people to make space for debate on divisive issues. that does seem very characteristic of a group on here - people who refuse to engage with any views other than their own, who throw about labels and smears against any view different from their own, and who delegitimise and dismiss everything other than their own one truth. i've posted it before, but i do genuinely believe that the ability to engage with the political views of other people, accept that it is legitimate to hold varying views, understand the logic behind the views of people one disagrees with, and empathise with people with different views is the absolute key to civilised debate.
but, if i did want to be condescending it would be in response to your apparent belief that 'evidence' resolves complex societal and political questions (as opposed to many scientific questions), that evidence is routinely clear cut or decisive, and that the act of interpreting evidence isn't a political process capable of producing many varied and legitimate answers. i would compare you view on 'evidence' as akin to that seen in the middling write up of a gcse chemistry practical. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Visiting America on 10:14 - Mar 29 with 1253 views | DJR |
| Visiting America on 10:08 - Mar 29 by lowhouseblue |
so your tactic here is to claim that i'm defending trump. to be clear, i'm not defending trump i am trying to understand what is going on in america - why trump got elected again and why he has the support that he has. of course, i could just shout slogans about him and post every anti-trump article or news flash, but instead i'm genuinely interested to objectively understand what is really go on. i'm interested in understanding what people who support trump think, why they think it, and if there are bits on which i agree with them then i can even cope with that.
i keep thinking of that more in common report on 'progressive activists' that was posted on here last month. it said that one feature of that group is that they are much less willing than other people to make space for debate on divisive issues. that does seem very characteristic of a group on here - people who refuse to engage with any views other than their own, who throw about labels and smears against any view different from their own, and who delegitimise and dismiss everything other than their own one truth. i've posted it before, but i do genuinely believe that the ability to engage with the political views of other people, accept that it is legitimate to hold varying views, understand the logic behind the views of people one disagrees with, and empathise with people with different views is the absolute key to civilised debate.
but, if i did want to be condescending it would be in response to your apparent belief that 'evidence' resolves complex societal and political questions (as opposed to many scientific questions), that evidence is routinely clear cut or decisive, and that the act of interpreting evidence isn't a political process capable of producing many varied and legitimate answers. i would compare you view on 'evidence' as akin to that seen in the middling write up of a gcse chemistry practical. |
Your second paragraph could be describing Trump and the MAGA movement | | | |
| Visiting America on 10:37 - Mar 29 with 1217 views | StokieBlue |
| Visiting America on 10:08 - Mar 29 by lowhouseblue |
so your tactic here is to claim that i'm defending trump. to be clear, i'm not defending trump i am trying to understand what is going on in america - why trump got elected again and why he has the support that he has. of course, i could just shout slogans about him and post every anti-trump article or news flash, but instead i'm genuinely interested to objectively understand what is really go on. i'm interested in understanding what people who support trump think, why they think it, and if there are bits on which i agree with them then i can even cope with that.
i keep thinking of that more in common report on 'progressive activists' that was posted on here last month. it said that one feature of that group is that they are much less willing than other people to make space for debate on divisive issues. that does seem very characteristic of a group on here - people who refuse to engage with any views other than their own, who throw about labels and smears against any view different from their own, and who delegitimise and dismiss everything other than their own one truth. i've posted it before, but i do genuinely believe that the ability to engage with the political views of other people, accept that it is legitimate to hold varying views, understand the logic behind the views of people one disagrees with, and empathise with people with different views is the absolute key to civilised debate.
but, if i did want to be condescending it would be in response to your apparent belief that 'evidence' resolves complex societal and political questions (as opposed to many scientific questions), that evidence is routinely clear cut or decisive, and that the act of interpreting evidence isn't a political process capable of producing many varied and legitimate answers. i would compare you view on 'evidence' as akin to that seen in the middling write up of a gcse chemistry practical. |
I'm afraid I don't have time to engage with this today but I will say that you've reframed the debate away from the original one which was representations in museums even if they don't match reality into a social and political debate where we are supposed to engage with fallacious and often offensive viewpoints.
Your last sentence is pathetic, hardly engaging in the civilised debate that you've spent pages pushing.
Have a good day.
SB | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
