Current Affairs Free Speech

[Tubey]

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.

Just have to pull you up on this... no, I don't think racism is the problem. Multiculturalism is. It has failed. I think I've said this four times now? I don't think Britain is racist actually; I think the country is conservative and that often gets confused for the same thing by those who don't understand nuance, but not outright racist. Certainly not compared to, well, most other countries really.

I don't have favourite Twitter posters, but from your tone I think you believe I'm a Guardianista - I'm, er... really not, as my thoughts on taking the knee and so on should show. I'm not left wing.

So I don't have those 'reflexes'. I just don't see a sensationalist Mail piece like that as helping to form a discussion on the issue of multiculturalism. So whilst I'm against people taking the knee as I think it's unhelpful and divisive, I'm against this in the same way.

 

[dead_soft]

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.

The book it is based on is one that had received a panning for its pretty terrible research - the Mail picked up on it because they love the ex radicalised Muslim angle and it helps them push their racist rhetoric whilst hiding behind them.
It'd be disingenuous in this instance to separate the headline, the photographs, or the stand first from the article
An interesting review of the book here:

 

[dead_soft]

Just have to pull you up on this... no, I don't think racism is the problem. Multiculturalism is. It has failed. I think I've said this four times now? I don't think Britain is racist actually; I think the country is conservative and that often gets confused for the same thing by those who don't understand nuance, but not outright racist. Certainly not compared to, well, most other countries really.

I don't have favourite Twitter posters, but from your tone I think you believe I'm a Guardianista - I'm, er... really not, as my thoughts on taking the knee and so on should show. I'm not left wing.

So I don't have those 'reflexes'. I just don't see a sensationalist Mail piece like that as helping to form a discussion on the issue of multiculturalism. So whilst I'm against people taking the knee as I think it's unhelpful and divisive, I'm against this in the same way.

Do you feel multiculturalism has failed because it is a policy or social idea that will always fail? Or do you feel it has failed in Britain for distinct reasons?

It's pretty broad sweep and patronising to say 'I think the country is conservative and that often gets confused for the same thing by those who don't understand nuance' without much to back it up. I'm not sure you can suggest those who believe the country are racist are just failing to see nuance.

 

[dholliday]

Just have to pull you up on this... no, I don't think racism is the problem. Multiculturalism is. It has failed. I think I've said this four times now? I don't think Britain is racist actually; I think the country is conservative and that often gets confused for the same thing by those who don't understand nuance, but not outright racist. Certainly not compared to, well, most other countries really.

I don't have favourite Twitter posters, but from your tone I think you believe I'm a Guardianista - I'm, er... really not, as my thoughts on taking the knee and so on should show. I'm not left wing.

So I don't have those 'reflexes'. I just don't see a sensationalist Mail piece like that as helping to form a discussion on the issue of multiculturalism. So whilst I'm against people taking the knee as I think it's unhelpful and divisive, I'm against this in the same way.

I stand corrected on you being reliable on echo chambers!

You did say: scapegoats are a common refrain throughout history. Before Muslims, it was black people. Before black people, it was the Irish and so on.

This suggests to the reader that you believe racism, or prejudice/discrimination, is the reason for "over-exacerbating" this particular issue. While I agree in the past these folk were often unfairly made scapegoats, this shouldn't form our view of what is happening right now. We should focus on real experiences of things happening, rather than look for clues in the past (as doing so is being abused as a tool to shut down debate about the here & now: i.e. the point of Critical Race Theory and the like).

My take on failed multi-culturalism: it doesn't inherently mean people of different races blame each other for stuff, it largely means they ignore each other, and form parallel societies. The issue brought by the Mail isn't about failed multi-culturalism per se, it's simply about open-aggression from relative newcomers against fellow citizens who may be regarded as 'native'. Which is a consequence of certain newcomers feeling emboldened by a society which appears to accept their behaviour. This behaviour appears accepted via aggressive shutting down of even questioning it (hence we're in the Free Speech thread). Hence my earlier request for your opinion on what we as a society can do:

Basically let's bin the big picture, let's not focus on history. Let's just focus on real things happening right now, and as a priority loudly & clearly admonish acts of violence & aggression against fellow citizens. Thereafter, we can better identify any instances of failed-multikulti, or genuine discrimination. We've been doing it the wrong way round: I believe there's been too much focus on the apparent causes of crime, rather than the crime itself. This has led to more societal strife, rather than less.

Incidentally, this was also the message of the ex-mayor of Neukölln, the Berlin-district where I lived 2007-2012. It wasn't heeded, and now the place is a little on-edge. From my readings of events elsewhere in Europe, including UK, there does seem to be a pattern.

The book it is based on is one that had received a panning for its pretty terrible research - the Mail picked up on it because they love the ex radicalised Muslim angle and it helps them push their racist rhetoric whilst hiding behind them.
It'd be disingenuous in this instance to separate the headline, the photographs, or the stand first from the article
An interesting review of the book here:

People on here are too reliant on regurgitating other people's opinions they see on Twitter. Reading the actual article, we see the real experiences described within. Are they newsworthy? I guess that should be the fair question to ask. First focus on the experiences described, judge that first. Then we can consider any possible 'racist rhetoric'. That I believe is the right order...that is, if we want to better understanding and maybe even improve things long-term.

 

[dead_soft]

People on here are too reliant on regurgitating other people's opinions they see on Twitter. Reading the actual article, we see the real experiences desribed within. Are they newsworthy? I guess that should be the fair question to ask. First focus on the experiences described, judge that first. Then we can consider any possible 'racist rhetoric'. That I believe is the right order...that is, if we want to better understanding and maybe even improve things long-term.

Not worth engaging with the 'people on here' type nonsense which is meant to diminish a point of view when you have little else to support it.

Both articles were read. The article I posted was a photo on twitter but to suggest it's just some random twitter user's opinion rather than a well-reasoned critic's opinion is ridiculous. I read both the articles. It's actually hard to parse who your response is to.

 

[dholliday]

Not worth engaging with the 'people on here' type nonsense which is meant to diminish a point of view when you have little else to support it.

Both articles were read. The article I posted was a photo on twitter but to suggest it's just some random twitter user's opinion rather than a well-reasoned critic's opinion is ridiculous. I read both the articles. It's actually hard to parse who your response is to.

I note with interest you're still not engaging with the real experiences described in the article.

Should that not be the priority here?

 

[dead_soft]

I note with interest you're still not engaging with the real experiences described in the article.

Should that not be the priority here?

Should it? Are you suggesting that framing of the narrative and the experiences chosen are not important?

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

I note with interest you didn't counter the Mails claims, clearly described in the headline, of racist attacks against white kids, Taliban-rule & women lacking basic freedoms. Burchill & Sakar are both known as trolls, both have written much clickbait for The Guardian. Best to ignore them. The Mail on the other hand does tend to report on things The Left find uncomfortable to engage with.

There is a real issue in Europe with some folk from Muslim communities aggressively walking around like they own the place. I've experienced it myself. The Left however won't engage with this issue.

Read the Mail article and make your own mind up, instead of reflexively believing what your echo chamber tells you to think. Note: the author of the Mail piece is a Muslim himself.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...sques-Britain-reveals-no-areas-white-men.html

Further note: the Mail website is horrible to read on Desktop: pop-up ads everywhere. Read it on mobile view.

Lol at you, making out that the Daily Mail is a reputable source lol

But then the other day you claimed that Trump was responsible for rolling out the vaccine and has done great work re Covid, so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[dholliday]

Should it? Are you suggesting that framing of the narrative and the experiences chosen are not important?

Real experiences cause real issues. The rest is secondary.

What are the real experiences? What happened? And what should we think or do about it?

Who reported it & how, who reviewed it, what the past tells us...all that is secondary. Not as important as the actual real thing that happened.

Look at the real world, what is actually happening?

 

[dholliday]

Lol at you, making out that the Daily Mail is a reputable source lol

Engage the message, not the messenger.

What is the Mail reporting? What happened? Is it newsworthy?

 

[Tubey]

I stand corrected on you being reliable on echo chambers!

You did say: scapegoats are a common refrain throughout history. Before Muslims, it was black people. Before black people, it was the Irish and so on.

This suggests to the reader that you believe racism, or prejudice/discrimination, is the reason for "over-exacerbating" this particular issue. While I agree in the past these folk were often unfairly made scapegoats, this shouldn't form our view of what is happening right now. We should focus on real experiences of things happening, rather than look for clues in the past (as doing so is being abused as a tool to shut down debate about the here & now: i.e. the point of Critical Race Theory and the like).

My take on failed multi-culturalism: it doesn't inherently mean people of different races blame each other for stuff, it largely means they ignore each other, and form parallel societies. The issue brought by the Mail isn't about failed multi-culturalism per se, it's simply about open-aggression from relative newcomers against fellow citizens who may be regarded as 'native'. Which is a consequence of certain newcomers feeling emboldened by a society which appears to accept their behaviour. This behaviour appears accepted via aggressive shutting down of even questioning it (hence we're in the Free Speech thread). Hence my earlier request for your opinion on what we as a society can do:

Basically let's bin the big picture, let's not focus on history. Let's just focus on real things happening right now, and as a priority loudly & clearly admonish acts of violence & aggression against fellow citizens. Thereafter, we can better identify any instances of failed-multikulti, or genuine discrimination. We've been doing it the wrong way round: I believe there's been too much focus on the apparent causes of crime, rather than the crime itself. This has led to more societal strife, rather than less.

Incidentally, this was also the message of the ex-mayor of Neukölln, the Berlin-district where I lived 2007-2012. It wasn't heeded, and now the place is a little on-edge. From my readings of events elsewhere in Europe, including UK, there does seem to be a pattern.




People on here are too reliant on regurgitating other people's opinions they see on Twitter. Reading the actual article, we see the real experiences described within. Are they newsworthy? I guess that should be the fair question to ask. First focus on the experiences described, judge that first. Then we can consider any possible 'racist rhetoric'. That I believe is the right order...that is, if we want to better understanding and maybe even improve things long-term.

Historically, yes, prejudice/discrimination has overexacerbated societal problems. I don't mean issues of some kind didn't exist; I'm saying they were blown out of proportion for a set purpose. What the Mail are doing is no different - attack the 'other', scapegoat, make them the source of why your life is bad.

But yes, I agree with your take on failed multiculturalism. I believe that people should be able to ignore skin colour and 'get along' - however, the reality is people set up 'camps' too easily, and the clue as to why is in the word itself - 'culture'. Some cultures are simply incompatable, no matter how much we wish we could all integrate and mix freely; things like arranged marriages will always come up against sharp, justified opposition in the west.

What you are essentially saying is that you think conversations should be had instead of burying our heads in the sand. And that's fine, totally agree. However, I really don't think what the Mail does is an attempt to do that.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

Engage the message, not the messenger.

What is the Mail reporting? What happened? Is it newsworthy?

I wouldn't believe anything the Mail prints personally. Find this sort of article in a reputable source then I'll 'engage the message'.

 

[dead_soft]

Real experiences cause real issues. The rest is secondary.

What are the real experiences? What happened? And what should we think or do about it?

Who reported it & how, who reviewed it, what the past tells us...all that is secondary. Not as important as the actual real thing that happened.

Look at the real world, what is actually happening?

This might sound true to you but it's really not. Why were experiences narrativised? Why were they reported on? Who reports it and who reviews it is very much not secondary. Someone telling someone 'my lad got jumped 5 times' and this then being reported unchallenged and then repeated in a national newspaper with a notoriously racist slant is not secondary.

 

[dholliday]

Historically, yes, prejudice/discrimination has overexacerbated societal problems. I don't mean issues of some kind didn't exist; I'm saying they were blown out of proportion for a set purpose. What the Mail are doing is no different - attack the 'other', scapegoat, make them the source of why your life is bad.

But yes, I agree with your take on failed multiculturalism. I believe that people should be able to ignore skin colour and 'get along' - however, the reality is people set up 'camps' too easily, and the clue as to why is in the word itself - 'culture'. Some cultures are simply incompatable, no matter how much we wish we could all integrate and mix freely; things like arranged marriages will always come up against sharp, justified opposition in the west.

What you are essentially saying is that you think conversations should be had instead of burying our heads in the sand. And that's fine, totally agree. However, I really don't think what the Mail does is an attempt to do that.

good post, tubes.

I wouldn't believe anything the Mail prints personally. Find this sort of article in a reputable source then I'll 'engage the message'.

personally i engage with all kinds of people in real-life, just as i read all kinds of media/forum online. i don't judge the platform, i judge what i read within that platform. The Mail has been very good with some stuff, and very bad with others (just like The Guardian, it's ideological mirror).

This might sound true to you but it's really not. Why were experiences narrativised? Why were they reported on? Who reports it and who reviews it is very much not secondary. Someone telling someone 'my lad got jumped 5 times' and this then being reported unchallenged and then repeated in a national newspaper with a notoriously racist slant is not secondary.

I'll answer your questions:

Why were experiences narrativised? Because they were told that way.
Why were they reported on? Because it seems newsworthy.

The top-rated comment has over 17,000 likes. It reads simply: "Should not be allowed to happen in the U.K."

the next two comments, with 14k/12k likes: "Decades of assorted British governments asleep at the wheel." - "Another example of Britain's tolerance being taken advantage of, time the Government took back control."

This mirrors what my old Neukölln Mayor was warning against. There is a pattern emerging in Europe. We're letting it emerge, as we appear to prefer to attack the messengers of things happening, rather than tackle the actual things happening.

I realise that the last thing you wanna do is agree with Mail-readers. I'm not expecting that. I am requesting that you merely consider their point-of-view.

 

[dead_soft]

good post, tubes.


personally i engage with all kinds of people in real-life, just as i read all kinds of media/forum online. i don't judge the platform, i judge what i read within that platform. The Mail has been very good with some stuff, and very bad with others (just like The Guardian, it's ideological mirror).


I'll answer your questions:

Why were experiences narrativised? Because they were told that way.
Why were they reported on? Because it seems newsworthy.

The top-rated comment has over 17,000 likes. It reads simply: "Should not be allowed to happen in the U.K."

the next two comments, with 14k/12k likes: "Decades of assorted British governments asleep at the wheel." - "Another example of Britain's tolerance being taken advantage of, time the Government took back control."

This mirrors what my old Neukölln Mayor was warning against. There is a pattern emerging in Europe. We're letting it emerge, as we appear to prefer to attack the messengers of things happening, rather than tackle the actual things happening.

I realise that the last thing you wanna do is agree with Mail-readers. I'm not expecting that. I am requesting that you merely consider their point-of-view.

It's very odd, you've take a line of thought and decided that's what I'm having. The point of view is considered and then dismissed, that's perfectly valid. You complain about people taking views from Twitter and then wish for them to engage with anonymous posts from a notoriously ill-informed and bigoted comments section. Why should I do that?
My view, however, is not formed as the opposite of the Mail comment section, but it shouldn't be surprising that my view is different from the cesspit of nonsense.

Your answers to those questions were frankly, bizarre. You pretty much reworded the questions as statements. Why were the experiences told that way? Why was no intellectual or journalistic rigour attached to the reporting of the experiences? Why are you so keen to take them as true because they are reported on? And if they are true why should they be used to dictate a view of the bigger picture.