In the same spirit, gentleman11's point is that if you attend a gathering with people you don't know, and that gathering turns out to be heavily represented by looters and rioters, you are going to be labelled with it.
> You're furiously defending an argument that you've made
More like trying to show to DanBC that their line of thinking is illogical. Regardless, I do not see anything furious about it.
There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti.
I'm pointing out that this is a simplistic, dishonest, framing:
> Eg, people out protecting Churchill statues in the UK are labelled as racists in several stories[1].
A more honest framing would be "people out protecting Churchill statutes, many of them making Nazi salutes and chanting racist slogans, are labelled as racists in several stories".
> There's nothing illogical about describing as racist a group of people who make Nazi salutes, who attack black people, who spray racist graffiti.
However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x.
> If you're in a large group, and many members of that group are by any definition racist, you're going to be called part of a racist group.
Now whether you meant that that is a case of will be vs should was not covered but that was what the original point was.
The new point about framing would be in relation to the original point made where all in the protest centred around protection of the statues were labelled racist for doing so by major news organisations.
At a guess there's at least two frustrations made in that that I can immediately think of
1) the lack of nuance from the papers (probably a hopeless ask given the way media operates in general for any story they handle but something worth discussing)
And 2) the hypocrisy displayed. We've seen the recent riots described as "mostly peaceful protests" time after time when a simple look at the stories and videos coming out show anything but yet the difference in the media descriptions of the two is pretty glaring would you agree?
> However that's not what you were doing; you were stating the point that being with a group doing x means you will labelled as x.
I still say that. If you attend a demonstration organised by a far right group (FLA), heavily promoted by other far right groups (Britain First, EDL), and prominent members of the far right (Stephen Yaxley Lennon, Paul Golding) then you're going to be called racist.
You're desperately trying to say these crowds were people interested in statues and merely peacefully protesting to protect statues. That shows a complete lack of understanding of i) who organised the demonstration ii) the language used to organise the demonstration iii) the behaviours displayed during the demonstration and iv) the commentary across the political spectrum condemning this demonstration as racist thuggery.
> yet the difference in the media descriptions of the two is pretty glaring would you agree?
At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in the UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left.
The people you're desperately trying to defend were drunk, coked-up, racist, football hooligans on a rampage. That has been fairly and accurately described by UK news media, including those on the right.
I haven't said anything about defending these crowds at all, you're welcome to point out where I defended them; I've pointed out the likely frustrations of op about two facedness and lack of nuance in the press.
I can perfectly see there are people in the protests making the nazi salutes just fine and I follow the logic behind getting the label if you hang with them, and as you'll surely agree in just the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault people.
> At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that in the UK the far right pose a far greater risk of harm than the left.
No, no I don't; both sides seem significantly detrimental in different ways and I don't have to permit free reign to one group of sociopathic bullies just because they are the enemies of a different one.
> the same way that those involved with the recent floyyd protests will be labelled as opportunistic thugs looking to destroy property and assault people
This is so disengenuous as to veer into the realm of absurdity. You seem to be completely ignoring the actual intent of the two groups in attempt to conflate them to defend your argument. Not to mention both side-ing them is an absolute joke.
The intent of the floyd protests wasn't to loot and destroy property. It was to protest his death. The fact that some took this opportunity to do so does not affect the actual intent which was upheld in many other places and protests.
The intent of the other group was explicitly racist. Organized by far-right groups and quite literal Nazis.
No the intent as described many times in the comment chain was protection of the statues; that was what spurred the counter protest.
Both sides began under good intent; both sides had bad actors who caused trouble; both sides get labelled.
And as DanBC said multiple times, that was not the real reason why they were out there. You seem to be ignoring all context for why they were out there and who organized it in attempt to equate the two in a disingenuous manner. At this point it's obvious you're not here to argue in good faith.
Unfortunate as it is but neither you nor DanBC are the global authority on other peoples "real reason" for doing things no matter how you feel on the subject.
Context is also a poorly thought out point to bring up considering plenty was provided; numerous examples of destruction of statues given before, no sign of slowing and future targetting given often and loudly.
Why are you repeating the same thing over and over while ignoring the argument given?
Oh well, here, let's repeat it. "There's nothing illogical about describing as looters and rioters a group of people who break windows, steal from shops, set buildings and cars on fire."
You can extend the same argument to have racist undertones by including all black people for example because there are some criminals among them. Racism is bad not because it is racism but rather because it is yet another instance of prejudice and generalization.
> You're furiously defending an argument that you've made
More like trying to show to DanBC that their line of thinking is illogical. Regardless, I do not see anything furious about it.