CrazyGaijin comments

British people all all the people regardless of their skin color who have full British citizenship. My own family are celts, predating Anglo Saxons.

Certainly, from the 1940's there have been non white peoples. 13% of the population are non white.

Racism has existed for decades. Just ask your black relatives.

The majority of other ethnicities who came to Britain was due to British colonization and the slave routes. Largely those from Hong Kong or India. Funny how we don't get any of them protesting, eh. There is new legislation that makes it easier for those from Hong Kong to emigrate to Britain, which I'm all for to be honest. A lot of Asians and Indians who came here did very well for themselves and are respected figures in society. If racism was so rife, why aren't they kicking up a fuss about it? The reason is actually simple: because they weren't thin skinned. They identified racism to be that of an ignorant few and got on with life -- a good life!

Racism hasn't existed for decades, it has existed since the dawn of man, and it's here to stay unfortunately.

Also, a passport doesn't make you British, lineage does.

Just who are the 'British people?' Seems to me the British people are the ones who took them down. The 'mob'aren't British to you because they did something you are against or they weren't white enough. More news for you: Everyone's view is subjective. Even those judges on the Supreme Court. That's why you usually see voting right along party lines. The only thing you are proving is my point: There are still millions like you who don't care about seeing the rights of (mostly) minorities constantly being violated but cry bloody murder about a hunk of metal statue being rightfully taken down. The struggle continues.

Who are the British people? Those whose ancestors built it. Make no mistake, Britain is a predominantly white nation and has been for thousands of years. It's actually only in the last twenty years that it has become a much more multicultural society, and the majority of that is seen in London and other city centers. Largely in part due to the mass migration of refugees from the Middle East and Africa.

Unfortunately your "news" sucks. Subjective is the opposite of objective, so no, not everyones view is subjective. I build arguments on qualitative and sometimes quantitative points of view which means they have a logical foundation. Judges in the Supreme Court pass judgements dictated by law, which, sadly to say, some laws are actually poorly determined.

Don't care about seeing the rights of minorities being violated? You mean, if they are actually being violated to begin with? What exactly is it I'm missing here? They can't get jobs? They can't go to schools? Buy things in shops? Get welfare? Healthcare? Go to universities? Be chairs on company boards? Become lawyers? Politicians? Work as scientists? Doctors?

The reality is minorities have the same rights as anyone else. The difference is, in this day and age, as typical with a superficial radical left movement, they expect it all to be handed to them on a platter.

Next time give good reason why those statues should be torn down, rather than the typical excuse of "some people find them offensive".

What a lot of commenters here who are opposed to their removal don’t seem to understand is that the statues are in places of honor in governmental building like legislature buildings and courthouses. The statues are being removed and taken to museums and cemeteries or memorial locations which puts them in the proper context. No one wants to erase the history, but imagine if you were black and you had to walk between racist, slave owners in order to talk to your representative or if you were Jewish and you had to pass Hitler or Mengele to enter the courthouse. It’s unconscionable and a complete lack of empathy to expect people to have to do that.

You see them simply as tyrannical slavers, British people see them as those who built and contributed towards British societies. There is more to their legacy than simply being associated with the slave trade. The slave trade was a different time. Black people don't have to endure those kinds of attrocities anymore because their ancestors fight for the liberties they have today -- AND THEY HAVE THEM!

What I don't understand about the BLM movement is what they're actually trying to achieve? What is it they think will change? It's like I said in another post: racism is the product of a ignorant remnants in society; it's not as systemic as people make out. I can understand it being quite bad in the US, but in Britain and Europe ... no chance. It's like a memory stick blowing up in your computer and then throwing your whole rig out of the window and replacing it with a new one. That's lazy thinking and unnecessary. In fact, it's quite indicative of an emotionally driven agenda. The limbic system overriding the prefrontal cortex, which is normal with anger and anxiety. They're letting emotions drive their actions rather than logic. Society doesn't need a revamp.

Countries don't experience slavery but people do, and to the last part of your statement, I say: What does that have to do with anything? "What? You guys had slavery? We didn't." You may not be aware nor care but slavery was a HUGE part of European, North American, South American and African history during the better part of the last 400 years. Those are continents, by the way, not a country.

And that proves what exactly? That you distinguished people experience slavery, not countries? The people OF A COUNTRY experience slavery. Your comment is pointless and irrelevant.

Don't think George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and a whole lot more died 'hundreds of years ago' but if you mean slavery in the U.S., it supposedly ended in 1865 but it did not end in practice nor in principle. Why did MLK have to march for basic civil rights back in the 1960s? Why did Rosa Parks have to take a stand just to get a seat? Why did LBJ need to sign the Civil Rights Act in 1965? Why is the Klan still active and not just in the Southern states? Why is it OK for some to say this guy who died 500 years ago is a hero and put up statues and holidays in his honor but not OK for other people who are descendants of the people who he helped to oppress to say he wasn't a hero? Anyway, with these statues coming down, it sounds like the 'whining' you wrote about is coming from the other side to me.

You mean the Goerge Floyd that was a meth head, who was jacked up on methd when he was arrested? The George Floyd that was a petty criminal who pointed a gun at a pregnant womens stomach? The George Floyd who had a previous beef with the actual cop who killed him? That whole situation, as time has shown, was barely about racism at all, yet they all jumped on that bangwagon very quickly. That's indicative of the lack of rational thinking by the radical left.

The statues in Britain were put up by the British people, and it's their choice whether to bring them down. Not the choice of a ignorant mob with superficial and subjective views. Do you see people going to Rome and tearing down statues because they colonized most of Europe at one point? Tearing down history is no better than burning books, just because they offend you. If you get offended by a statue in the priviledged societies you live in today, then you need to grow up. And do you think somehow that all white people were living a life of luxury hundreds of years ago? Think again! 99% of them were poverty-stricken, dying of exposure or infection, and working till their fingers bled just so they could afford basic shelter and some bread.

Racism, like all descrimination, is part of life, and it's not going anywhere. If I go to an Asian or African country, I'm subject to racism. But you ignore it because it's the work of an ignorant few, not the oppressive nature of a whole society. Not to mention that experiencing such things toughens you up as an individual. The world that the radical left is striving for creates fragile people. I can't stress enough how detrimental and dangerous that is on a psychological level.

Simply leaving them under the guise of "history" is naive, at best.

In what way is it naive? The reality of taking your approach is that you don't know where to stop. If we start removing everything that people find offensive then we'll simply wash out history and start rewriting it as we see fit. That's Orwellian to say the least.

You don't get to tear down a British statue in Britain just because YOU find it offensive. Should we stop making documentaries about Nazi Germany because people might find it offensive? Should we rip down the Burma-Siam Railway because it was built by Allied POWs?

Your logic is based around "offence" and offence is nothing but subjective. It's weak and immature.

You show me one country that hasn't experienced slavery at some point in history and i'll show you ten that has.

Stop whining about things that happened hundreds of years ago. Those people sacrificed and survived so you can have the life you live today. Those statues are there so we can remember that. Not to mention that it's not up to another race or nationality to remove the monuments of another culture which they find "offensive". Offence is subjective, not objective. If the statues actually shot lasers out their eyes and killed people of a different race then yeah, we'd have to do something about that, but they don't; all they do is tell a history that we should all be aware of.

Also, in the UK, racism isn't as rife and systemic as the BLM movement likes to make out. In fact, those people are living in the least racist, most tolerant and affluent time in human history. And here is another hard truth for you to suck up: that small amount of discrimination we see now and then ... it ain't going anywhere, because it's built into human biology. We evolved to be tribalistic by nature. That doesn't mean we can't have a world where descrimination is at a minimum, but forget about this typical radical leftist utopian delusion of a descriminatory free world, because it ain't happening.

I voted yes, but it really depends on your definition of "National Security".

It's known that cars can now be infected with malware, tracked and even taken over by remote control. China are particularly interested in these kinds of abilities. That can be seen as a national security concern.

It can also affect the economy in certain ways, for example the introduction of fuel efficient or electric cars can have an affect on oil prices. You could also out-muscle domestic competition which siphons equity out of the country.

There are national security concerns for sure, but I think Trump overexaggerates them to win votes.

Gas lighting won't verify your argument.

Try harder.

Jimizo is actually correct. You should read the Gulag Archipelago.

Maybe because they saw #metoo, which most definitely changed things.

It opens up a conversation. And we've seen recently that these hashtags can indeed change things.

It didn't change anything besides make a lot of people anxious and socially apprehensive.

The #MeToo movement was a sham: it was a superficial manifestation from Hollywoods sleezy industry, and it got imposed onto the real world as if it had the same problems. The #MeToo movement took away natural social interactions which have been forming in various cultural societies for a millenia. Basically, it did more bad than good.

I'm all up for equality in the sane, logical sense, but I really don't understand why people think making hashtag Twitter feeds with superficial phrases like "ThisIs2019" think that is going to change anything.

Just make sure it's equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome like people in the west are trying to push on society. And think carefully about how such changes affect culture and social interaction.

God forbid that Boris Johnson ever gets anywhere near Downing Street 10. He is a clown of the highest order and was a disaster as foreign secretary. Him as PM? No, no, no!

If these five ( Boris Johnson, Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove) are the options, God save the Queen.

I concur wholeheartedly.

That's a crackin' pair of melons.

Nice box, too.

The next UK PM needs to be someone who can keep the country together and afloat post-Brexit.

Despite what some people believe, Britain still has great manufacturing in certain sectors, especially in engineering. Also, banks won't start abandoning London for the EU mainland because London has the reputation, experience and facilities already established to provide high quality financial services. Having the fifth largest economy and being the centre of the commonwealth also guarantees its clout on the international stage as well. However, Britain will have to pull its socks up and tread carefully to survive Brexit.

One also has to be mindful that the EU is fragmenting from the inside with the rise of nationalist parties. It's possibly a matter of time before the EU crumbles anyway.

as an "imbecile" and a "fool of low IQ"

The irony.

The other side of your comment is that throughout history, rape or sexual harrasebt has been a consequence-free weapon used by many men.

That depends on your definition of rape and sexual harassment. Men haven't been able to use rape or sexual harassment as a consequence-free weapon in any way. At least not in the last century.

I found that a lot of the flaws with the #MeToo movement were based largely on people's subjective views. It seemed like many women had unchecked freedom to dictate what constitutes as rape and sexual harassment, and with a movement supporting them it was difficult to call them out without destroying ones own life.

The reality of the #Metoo movement boils down to a few things:

The guilt of many celebrities selling their dignity for a fast track to stardom (#MeToo spawned from Hollywood).

It's simply a power grab. Celebrities, particularly in Hollywood, are always looking to increase their status and power. Social media has opened up many doorways to increase ones influence.

In the life of the everyday working person such things rarely exist. The #MeToo movement is like the egalitarian argument: people are demanding something that is actually already present in society.

Boys will be boys ..

I know, I am one.

Which is exactly what you callously refer to as a blob if tissue. It's a blop of potential, development, and life. Therefore, by your logic, as well as mine, abortion is murder.

No. It's referred to as murder based on the idea that the mother intends to go through with the pregnancy; therefore, you're stealing a mother of her child and destroying the opportunity of life. Also, you would need to take into consideration the maliciousness of murder. There would have to be a motivation, purpose and intention, which brings up another ethical question: murder is clearly immoral, but is abortion?

In theory, you can't kill something that isn't alive, that's like planting a seed and then saying you killed a tree if you remove the seed a couple of weeks later. The question is: when is it considered a human life? You believe it's from conception and I believe it's when the most fundamental aspect which makes us human has developed.

I'm not saying what Jake said is true or untrue, but I will say this ...

The wests subjective view of how society should work isn't as ethically pure and egalitarian as one would believe. There are reasons why many people, including myself, who use to identify as centre-left are now gradually shifting to the centre-right: there are many problems and flaws because progressive idealism is built on subjective rather than objective views.

Japan isn't the United States, and quite frankly I don't want it to be anything like United States.

Little Rocket Man is at it again.

"Just loud bangs. A couple loud bangs and then we just saw everyone run out of the building, like nervous, like a scared run like they were looking behind,"

People aren't very articulate in their speech these days, are they?

Being from England, it absolutely baffles me why anyone would think it's a good idea for the general public to own guns. I understand the whole maintaining the balance angle, but that's an ideal from two-hundred years ago. Despite the fact that it's a very obsolete amendment, there are far safer and efficient ways to enact it.

A monarchy system is part of cultural identity. Being English, I understand the reasons and values of maintaining a monarchy. I'm not particularly a royalist but I do believe that a monarchy is symbolic and unifying in certain ways.

Banzai!

We'll have androids soon, and probably cyborgs after that.

Call me old fashioned, but it sounds like there is a serious lack of actual love and passion involved in this relationship.

"They should change that to the Radical Left Democrat Party," he told a crowd that nearly filled the 10,500-seat Risch Center in Green Bay. "It's crazy what's going on with them. Oh, do I look forward to running against them."

You know, I'm not a massive fan of Trump, but I feel he's a necessary evil with the way the world is going these days. He's calling out the left for what it has become: a bunch of lunatics who constantly contradict their own values.

Trump is trying to strong-arm half of the worlds major players. This can potentially backfire on him in the big way. He also needs to get it out of his head that the world doesn't revolve around the United States.

I wonder why he specifically wanted a gun ...

I'm not really sure what constitutes as the greatest year for movies, but I do know that it definitely wasn't in the last ten years: a decade of CGI superhero drivel and independent psuedo-moralistic nonsense.

I know everyone is trying to force their empty moral superiority here, but you have to admit, it is quite a funny article.

Oh, come on! Everyone knows there is aliens on the moon. Just look at all that CGI evidence scattered around YouTube.