Black Lives Matter

[Niall_Quinn]

Life is full of winners and losers in the west. 99% of winners win because they are prepared to do what it takes to win. 99% of losers lose because they choose to. There's nothing insurmountable holding back anyone who wants to succeed. But life is not supposed to be free and easy, that's not the way the world works or has ever worked. When you have a mentality that makes you a loser right out of the gate, such as these minority groups who assume victim status, or these comfortable know-nothings (who abuse the benefits of their parent's efforts to condemn their parents), you'll lose big.

Society is about how the winners treat the losers. We could do much to make that process better, yet the west still comfortably leads the rest of the world on that measure. Welfare systems, voluntary systems, safety nets that simply don't exist across vast swathes of the planet. Losers are treated well in the west.

What we have now is these losers, who wouldn't put in the effort, making demands not just for "equality" but actual preference. They want your money, they want your job, they want what you worked for and they wouldn't. They feel because they have been losers all their lives the compensation for their failure should be all the greater. This is a totally unreasonable set of demands and should be rejected out of hand. It's fine to help a loser, but there's no reason to ever apologise to them. Certainly you should never be guilty about your own efforts, just because others failed to emulate you.

If losers want to change their lot, stop demanding others do it for you and get on with doing it yourself. It's a free world full of opportunity, provided the losers don't seize control, of course. Why would anyone think putting losers in control would be a recipe for anything other than disaster?

[GP]

[WMUG]

Life is full of winners and losers in the west. 99% of winners win because they are prepared to do what it takes to win. 99% of losers lose because they choose to. There's nothing insurmountable holding back anyone who wants to succeed. But life is not supposed to be free and easy, that's not the way the world works or has ever worked. When you have a mentality that makes you a loser right out of the gate, such as these minority groups who assume victim status, or these comfortable know-nothings (who abuse the benefits of their parent's efforts to condemn their parents), you'll lose big.

Society is about how the winners treat the losers. We could do much to make that process better, yet the west still comfortably leads the rest of the world on that measure. Welfare systems, voluntary systems, safety nets that simply don't exist across vast swathes of the planet. Losers are treated well in the west.

What we have now is these losers, who wouldn't put in the effort, making demands not just for "equality" but actual preference. They want your money, they want your job, they want what you worked for and they wouldn't. They feel because they have been losers all their lives the compensation for their failure should be all the greater. This is a totally unreasonable set of demands and should be rejected out of hand. It's fine to help a loser, but there's no reason to ever apologise to them. Certainly you should never be guilty about your own efforts, just because others failed to emulate you.

If losers want to change their lot, stop demanding others do it for you and get on with doing it yourself. It's a free world full of opportunity, provided the losers don't seize control, of course. Why would anyone think putting losers in control would be a recipe for anything other than disaster?

What makes somebody a winner or a loser?

[Letters]

What makes somebody a winner or a loser?

That's a good question.
To me it's not about winning and losing, the ideal is that everyone has the same opportunities in life. It's not possible in reality, but that's the ideal.
But my contention is that the main thing which affects people's opportunities is their social class.
Grow up in a stable, affluent home then you've got a better chance in life than someone who grows up in poverty with all the stresses that adds to life.
And then there's people like Johnson whose parents were able to pay his way through Eton, plug into the old boys network and now he's PM.
It's not impossible for someone to come off a council estate and get there but I'd suggest it's much harder.

Is race a factor too? Maybe, but I don't think it's the main one. Happy to be proven wrong if anyone has evidence to the contrary.

[GP]

the ideal is that everyone has the same opportunities in life. It's not possible in reality

Indeed. If you go to a bog standard comprehensive, you've got to work way harder than if you're a posh twat who got bummed at Eton or Ampleforth. Just going to the "right" school will offer you more opportinities in life, regardless of how talented or hard working you may be.

[The Wengerbabies]

While the polls were wrong in 2016, I wouldn’t just claim they are now.

The polls are mainly a strategy to manipulate public opinion. Always have been always will be.

So this then

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-533...tions-answered

The woman in this says about systemic racism:



How is society structured that way? I mean, historically yes, but now? Obviously this historic things do have long lasting effects which persist, but how is society structured now to stop black people progressing. Later she says (in response to someone asking what they can do) writing to your MP. And say what? What laws can MP's change which will make a difference?

That's a good question.
To me it's not about winning and losing, the ideal is that everyone has the same opportunities in life. It's not possible in reality, but that's the ideal.
But my contention is that the main thing which affects people's opportunities is their social class.
Grow up in a stable, affluent home then you've got a better chance in life than someone who grows up in poverty with all the stresses that adds to life.
And then there's people like Johnson whose parents were able to pay his way through Eton, plug into the old boys network and now he's PM.
It's not impossible for someone to come off a council estate and get there but I'd suggest it's much harder.

Is race a factor too? Maybe, but I don't think it's the main one. Happy to be proven wrong if anyone has evidence to the contrary.

Indeed. If you go to a bog standard comprehensive, you've got to work way harder than if you're a posh twat who got bummed at Eton or Ampleforth. Just going to the "right" school will offer you more opportinities in life, regardless of how talented or hard working you may be.

Systematic racism is a real thing, just not the version they'd have you believe. Multiple schemes/scholarships/grants etc exist to help BAME groups which simpy don't exist for white people. A study a few years ago showed white working class boys are the most disadvantaged in Britain.

It's well known that affirmitive action in US universities heavily favours black students over white and Asian. To get into med school for instance Asians require the highest MCAT scores followed by whites while a black candidate can get in with scores that would disqualify the Asian.



That is systematic racism.


The reality is it's not a race thing it's a class thing.

[Niall_Quinn]

What makes somebody a winner or a loser?

It's a self assessment, for people with character, and a third party assessment for those without. Either's just as valid in a practical sense, I would think.

[Niall_Quinn]

Indeed. If you go to a bog standard comprehensive, you've got to work way harder than if you're a posh twat who got bummed at Eton or Ampleforth. Just going to the "right" school will offer you more opportinities in life, regardless of how talented or hard working you may be.

Pure envy and class hatred on show here.

[GP]

Pure envy and class hatred on show here.

The posh twat outs himself.

[Niall_Quinn]

The posh twat outs himself.

And if I was "posh", by your definition (which I'm sure is priceless), how would that affect your ailment?