These mail stories are 3 weeks apart.
One story in which Didsbury is a posh, leafy suburb, which is the most popular place for buyers, the other it is a no go area for whites.
Current Affairs Free Speech
- Thread starter Lord Buckethead
- Start date
- Status
These mail stories are 3 weeks apart.
One story in which Didsbury is a posh, leafy suburb, which is the most popular place for buyers, the other it is a no go area for whites.
Depends on definition mate.
There are parts I consider pretty rough so avoid.
There's hatred preached in some of those areas you say has failed.
I'm from Kirkby - you take someone who was raised in a more privileged area and they'd probably regard Kirkby, once the least diverse borough in the UK, as a no-go area.
It's almost like different journalists have different views.
There's an article on GOT saying Moyes would be a good choice - when I'd abandon Everton if they appointed him lol
Oh absolutely. I'm from Kirkby too.
But the Mail have specifically said towns that are no go areas in their headline. Entire towns.
That's sensationalism and editorial direction with a very specific aim.
Editors dictate what goes out though, and the Mail - unlike GOT - isn't objective with what they do.
Oh, and you'll also note the Mail use "MailOnline Reporter" when they're spinning what they want to spin, rather than a journalists' name.
Oh sure, I accept that. My point is more that it’s simply click bait, aimed at different groups, and should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
One of those articles wouldn't have featured if they had an agenda or editorial bias against Didsbury.
It's to prevent abuse.
BBC, Sky Sports etc are increasingly doing it too.
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
They don’t exist though, at least in the UK.
There's a difference between perception and reality.
Someone can perceive a place as a no go area even if it actually and obviously literally isn't.
As a Kirkby lad, the 'top end of Northwood' was a 'no go area' as a kid, as in you simply didn't risk it. In reality, you could obviously go there and 99.9% of the time walk out unscathed, but it's the risk/reward perception.
The problem is articles like that in the Mail increase that perception over reality, exacerbating failed multiculturalism.
JLW
Player Valuation: £70m
Warrenhouse road and anywhere past the Woody
Exactly - now imagine Warrenhouse Road had a large Islamic population; the instinct would be then to label that a 'Muslim no go area' because it's instinctively easy to do. Human perception highlights difference as an identifier very readily.
I have no doubts, at all, that certain streets or even several streets in certain areas will have that exact situation. But towns? Entire towns? That's obviously ludicrous.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
it's not necessarily poor people that are being aggressive. It can also be the more affluent ones: with flashy cars, clothes & the rest.
Your take follows a set textbook thought-pattern (i.e. white locals are racist against non-white newcomers) before engaging with any real experiences. This informs your reflexive belief system (that racism is the problem), which is confirmed by your favoured Twitter posters, who have the same reflexes.
I can only speak of my experiences in Germany, however, and of wider events I see reliably reported on throughout the country, including street battles with police and the like. During my years in Hull & London (up to 2005) I only experienced open aggression from folk of my own skin tone, for what it's worth. Tho' in the last 5 years I do hear of things happening in England & France which read very similar to what's been happening in Germany. Perhaps this is my own reflexive thought-pattern merely being confirmed by favoured things I read.
Still, my own take is to engage with real experiences to gain understanding, rather than seek a general 'big picture' view. With that in mind, I've openly shouted down real actual racists I've encountered (in this case white folk denigrating non-white folk), and I've locally helped arab-refugees with their asylum-applications who were otherwise lost & helpless. But I won't shy away from criticising things I see as damaging to society: and currently some within muslim communities are causing real problems. This needs sorting.
I agree with you that The Mail over-sensationalises, just as its opposites do the opposite by under-reporting such issues while over-sensationalising the 'far-right' threat. For example, I live in an area of Berlin which The Left decry as 'full of Nazis', yet in the years I've been here all I've seen are 'Nazis raus!' posters, 'refugees welcome' signs everywhere, and a handful of refugee-centres within stone's throw opening up and thankfully not yet having any big issues, from either side. An actual nazi? Nowhere to be seen. Even AFD are chased out of town. Yet here I've experienced arab-blokes driving on pavements towards me with my boy in the pushchair, then aggressively jumping out the car threatening to beat me up for not showing them enough respect as I didn't get out the way quickly enough. i.e. walking around like they own the place. i.e. bordering on making that particular Fußgängerzone (wide pavement area) a no-go area.
How would you suggest we provoke conversation without generalising that any one group is the bad guy? My own suggestion is very simple: we as a society (all society, all groups) need to all publicly agree that open aggression against fellow citizens is unacceptable. This comes first. This is always the priority in any debate. Thereafter we can consider other potential issues like discrimination etc. For if we don't have that as priority, if we consider discrimination as the first thing to consider, then the open aggression will be become accepted as normal behaviour. As it appears to be in some parts of US (going by countless videos doing the rounds).
Huge assumption right there.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
These mail stories are 3 weeks apart.
One story in which Didsbury is a posh, leafy suburb, which is the most popular place for buyers, the other it is a no go area for whites.
False reading. You only need to read those few words of text to realise your interpretation is inaccurate. The claimed "no-go" area is in Blackburn. Didsbury is claimed to have had a Sharia Court in a Mosque, something which while controversial doesn't necessarily directly affect the otherwise nice area.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
I appreciate my post was a bit TL/DR. I'll keep it short(ish):
How would you suggest we provoke conversation without generalising that any one group is the bad guy? My own suggestion is very simple: we as a society (all society, all groups) need to all publicly agree that open aggression against fellow citizens is unacceptable. This comes first. This is always the priority in any debate. Thereafter we can consider other potential issues like discrimination etc. For if we don't have that as priority, if we consider discrimination as the first thing to consider, then the open aggression will be become accepted as normal behaviour. As it appears to be in some parts of US (going by countless videos doing the rounds).
- Status