UK Politics - Not a Special Relationship

[Which Tyler]

Of course HOI thinks David Goodhart isn't a racist! Of course s/he does.

 

 

Out of interest though, I don't see anything in that Guardian article saying that he's a racist.

[mormont]

David Goodhart admits that his own children think he's a racist. So it seems a little odd to get exercised over the fact that a media outlet might agree.

[Heartofice]

Sorry what I should have said was ‘ of course ‘Which Tyler’ thinks David Goodhart is a racist. That bit didn’t need to be said though.

He clearly isn’t a racist, but it’s not surprising that something like the guardian would look in horror at someone who doesn’t buy into left wing reactionary thinking being given a job in a conservative government 

[The Anti-Targ]

Given white self-interest can't be anything other than an euphemism for racism I don't see how Goodhart can't be racist for defending it as not racism. I think maybe there is some notion out there that unless you are a tiki torch carrying, swastika tattooed, shaven head member of a white supremacist organisation then you aren't racist.

So given we actually have an evidentiary exhibit of Goodhart being racist in the form of an article he wrote defending a racist concept, where is the counterfactual evidence that he isn't?

[Heartofice]

I guess it’s a dog whistle or something is it? Sigh. Or just read what he wrote .

[Pebble thats Stubby]

22 hours ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

I think as long as the EU is around long enough we will one day re-join.  Its unlikely to be in the next 30 years and may not be in my lifetime.  but eventually we will re-join.

 

Personally I'd take the Euro and the loss of rebate excreta, if it meant re-joining.  I would have voted against that while we where still members but I think its a price worth paying.  I also agree a lot of people really won't be willing to get rid of the pound to re-join, but maybe one day.

 

I live in hope and acknowledge its more of a wild dream than any chance of reality, but I hope we will get over our Brexit ways and really push for re-joining in about 15-20 years  I know that won't happen, but I have a dream.

 

16 hours ago, Heartofice said:

This is exactly the sort of post that makes people hate remainers so much. 

Long term I would be happy to re-join some sort of EU, but that form of EU, a loose trading confederation will never come about again, instead it will become something far worse than it is now, and that is one reason I'm more than happy to be out.

 

13 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

What HoI means is that wishing disaster on your country to promote your political goals and serve your countrymen/women right for voting the wrong way is not a good look. And he's right.  

 

13 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Exactly, wishing disaster on your own country, just so you can be proven right is not going to make you very popular. It makes even less sense when your ultimate goal is to get your country to join some opaque supranational organisation that ultimately reduces your your own national sovereignty. I mean how much national self hatred can you get into one paragraph?

Add in just a not insignificant amount of hyperbole about people dying and you have basically your standard caricature of a hand wringing Remainer.  It wouldn't be just passionate Brexiteers who would be put off by such a thing.

If you can for one moment try and see things from my perspective - I'm not asking you to agree with it, just attempt to understand it, it may make you feel less hateful of my post and understand what I mean.

 

First take as a fact that I believe any form of Brexit will lead to hardship and suffering.  I'd love to be wrong here but I have zero doubt in this whatsoever.  I believe that the harder the Brexit the more damage, and the more suffering.  and Yes I really do believe people will die as a result of this.  - you may call this hyperbole, but don't insult me by suggesting I'm lying about what I believe.   I'm not interested in arguing the results of Brexit with you, we will never agree.  

 

So bearing in mind that I believe Brexit is going to cause lots of damage and suffering, and the current government seems to be going for a hard or no deal Brexit (although this may change without Cummings possibly)  thus the suffering and damage will continue for a very long time.

I don't want people to suffer.  I see the way to stop people suffering as to move closer and more inline with Europe.  I personally believe we would be better off inside than outside - One can dream about re-joining.  So given this the quickest way to stop the suffering and damage is to move fastest from the current position.  Hence me feeling that it being really bad should mean we might want to actually do something to stop the suffering instead of just trying to live with it and over time forgetting what is causing the suffering.   

I see it as a bit like an Addict, until they reach rock bottom they really don't seek help.  and since I personally believe that on the current course Rock bottom is inevitable is it not better to get there quicker so we can come though the other side faster?

 

I don't want suffering as a way of proving my point.  I find it insulting that you would think I'm that callous.  I'd love to be wrong and for Brexit to be a resounding success.  I don't believe this is possible I think I have a better chance of winning the lottery and I don't even buy any tickets - hell someone my buy one for me.

 

So now you know my personal beliefs on just how bad Brexit will be maybe go back and read what I originally wrote and see if you still feel I'm a callous evil bitch.

 

Of and for the matter of the EU becoming an even worse thing, I personally have no problem with ever closer union, and would consider it a good thing to be part of.  I know you and many others feel differently.

[Which Tyler]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

it’s not surprising that something like the guardian would look in horror at someone who doesn’t buy into left wing reactionary thinking being given a job in a conservative government 

Leaving aside the question of whether an openly racist person may be considered racist...

Also leaving aside what a dog whistle is.

 

I think the horror isn't that he's being given a job in a conservative government. It's that someone who has publicly supported the hostile environment programme, and said that it should have gone further, may just possibly not be considered an unbiased observer when it comes to investigating the hostile environment programme.

I think this because it's explicitly stated.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Given white self-interest can't be anything other than an euphemism for racism I don't see how Goodhart can't be racist for defending it as not racism. I think maybe there is some notion out there that unless you are a tiki torch carrying, swastika tattooed, shaven head member of a white supremacist organisation then you aren't racist.

So given we actually have an evidentiary exhibit of Goodhart being racist in the form of an article he wrote defending a racist concept, where is the counterfactual evidence that he isn't?

But can we really call someone racist just off the words that they say, and ideas they espouse.

Just the other day I saw a group of white people  screaming about white-power and white-genocide.

Like how do I know they weren't just talking about power-rangers and they were trying to transform to stop white-ranger genocide?

Kidding.

Though yeah there’s this sentiment of unless a person literally says “I hate black and brown people!” they can’t be racist. Even if they’re crying about white-genocide and race mixing.

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I guess it’s a dog whistle or something is it? Sigh. Or just read what he wrote .

Having read the article the actual content of it is no more salient than any  alt-right dreg.

 It boils down the white-race needs to be preserved and protected from the horror of multiculturalism which entails mixing with none-whites, and how whites wanting to keep America white, isn’t racist because they want to preserve their white-culture.

He’s racist.

 

[Which Tyler]

To be fair, I mis-spoke (well, miss-typed) when I said he was a "self-proclaimed racist".

 

IIRC he's perfectly open that those who know him best consider him to be racist, whilst he sees himself as merely a proponent of white self-interest and white-grievance
He doesn't think that he's racist, just that racist policies are good ones.
He's got nothing against the BAME community, he just doesn't want them to be treated as being the equals of the WASP community.

 

Dogwhistles, are supposed to be silent except to those in the know.
White self-interest is much more closely related to a megaphone.

Or in HOI terms:

8 hours ago, Heartofice said:

He clearly isn't a racist.

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

38 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

He's got nothing against the BAME community, he just doesn't want them to be treated as being the equals of the WASP community.

 

And  make clear it’s totally okay for white Americans to want America to stay white.

In fact if you say it isn’t  is you’re fueling actual racism.

 

[Heartofice]

8 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

I think the horror isn't that he's being given a job in a conservative government. It's that someone who has publicly supported the hostile environment programme, and said that it should have gone further, may just possibly not be considered an unbiased observer when it comes to investigating the hostile environment programme.

I think this because it's explicitly stated.

What would an unbiased observer be? Isn't everyone biased? Don't most people (possibly wrongly) already have a set of opinions about the hostile environment based on what they have read in the newspapers?

It's worth mentioning he isn't working alone here, so his opinions will be countered by others. Surely it is a good thing to have people with a range of backgrounds and opinions when discussing things, rather than some homogenous group who all nod along and never get challenged (as seems to be the culture prescribed by the left media) 

 

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It's worth mentioning he isn't working alone here, so his opinions will be countered by others. Surely it is a good thing to have people with a range of backgrounds and opinions when discussing things, rather than some homogenous group who all nod along and never get challenged (as seems to be the culture prescribed by the left media) 

 

I'm sorry, but what left media? We barely have any media with a national platform in this country that could be described as left-wing. A handful of Guardian commentators probably qualify...and that's it. You're not wrong about there being a homogeneity of unchallenged opinion in our media, but it's very much not left-wing opinion.

[Heartofice]

14 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I'm sorry, but what left media? We barely have any media with a national platform in this country that could be described as left-wing. A handful of Guardian commentators probably qualify...and that's it. You're not wrong about there being a homogeneity of unchallenged opinion in our media, but it's very much not left-wing opinion.

Well I guess if you don’t count The Guardian,  Mirror, independent, The BBC ( which yes at its heart is incredibly left wing) Channel 4 .. and pretty much all of the internet and Twitter.. then yeah.

[BigFatCoward]

19 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well I guess if you don’t count The Guardian,  Mirror, independent, The BBC ( which yes at its heart is incredibly left wing) Channel 4 .. and pretty much all of the internet and Twitter.. then yeah.

The number of people that read right wing papers far exceeds those that read left wing ones, twitter and the internet is not the media. And both sides think the BBC is biased towards the other. But other than that you are spot on.

[Heartofice]

22 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The number of people that read right wing papers far exceeds those that read left wing ones, twitter and the internet is not the media. And both sides think the BBC is biased towards the other. But other than that you are spot on.

How many people do you think read newspapers in 2020?

While there are some loonies who like to say the BBC is right wing, I think you’d be insane to believe it. Look at the reaction when the gov tried to hire Charles Moore.

and yes the internet is media, and the major players on the internet are culturally and politically of one mind 

[mormont]

The BBC is inherently a small-c conservative institution, and one need only look at its coverage of (for example) the royal family and other institutions of the state to see that. The claim that it is left wing is, ironically, founded in its opposition to right-wing radicalism - understandably, since that wing of the Conservative party is ideologically opposed to the license fee, independence in news reporting and public service broadcasting in general, ie everything that the BBC is. But no objective analysis (and there have been many) shows any left-wing slant to the BBC.

Goodhart started as a print journalist and largely is still best known as one, so it's reasonable to point out that field doesn't have a left wing bias, but just the opposite. He is largely published in right wing newspapers now (the Telegraph, FT, etc.) I'm not sure that complaining about the left media is particularly relevant since Goodhart has no problem getting articles published in print and online, acquiring book deals, and indeed as we now see being handed quango jobs for which he is not particularly qualified by a right-wing government.

I think it's also reasonable to say that the declaration that he is 'clearly not a racist' when he has famously published an article explaining that 'white self-interest is not racism', regularly claims without evidence that immigration undermines the welfare state, and habitually treats the concepts of cultural diversity, immigration and race as if the terms were interchangeable, is exonerating him without a fair consideration of the facts.

[polishgenius]

I feel like claiming that the BBC is 'incredibly left wing' and that Goodhart is not a racist is a mask-off moment if ever there was one.

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

The BBC is inherently a small-c conservative institution, and one need only look at its coverage of (for example) the royal family and other institutions of the state to see that. The claim that it is left wing is, ironically, founded in its opposition to right-wing radicalism - understandably, since that wing of the Conservative party is ideologically opposed to the license fee, independence in news reporting and public service broadcasting in general, ie everything that the BBC is. But no objective analysis (and there have been many) shows any left-wing slant to the BBC.

I mean you could cherry pick any number of bits and pieces and say 'oh its conservative', but if you look at it as a whole it is pretty left wing. I would actually exclude general news reporting from that as it is under a lot of scrutiny to not screw up there, even though it does have quite a few moments of error, such as not making clear the activist background of some of its commenters. You've had people like Andrew Neil and John Humphries leave after poor treatment, Humphries himself claiming the BBC has 'institutional liberal bias'
 
You have Emily Maitlis not even pretending to be impartial and presenting opinion as fact on Newsnight, you have Fiona Bruce on Question Time which is usually a panel of guests who agree with each other and someone that they can all argue with. The majority of its comedy and drama output is exclusively liberal in its outlook, the majority of people who work there are young liberals (hence the numbers who threatened to quit when a conservative was rumoured to be put in charge) 

21 minutes ago, mormont said:

Goodhart started as a print journalist and largely is still best known as one, so it's reasonable to point out that field doesn't have a left wing bias, but just the opposite. He is largely published in right wing newspapers now (the Telegraph, FT, etc.) I'm not sure that complaining about the left media is particularly relevant since Goodhart has no problem getting articles published in print and online, acquiring book deals, and indeed as we now see being handed quango jobs for which he is not particularly qualified by a right-wing government.

What strawman is this? The liberal media exists, I didn't say there isn't a conservative media as well? It was Liffguard up abov who wants to pretend that the left wing media is some sort of poor underdog, which is far from the case.

23 minutes ago, mormont said:

I think it's also reasonable to say that the declaration that he is 'clearly not a racist' when he has famously published an article explaining that 'white self-interest is not racism', regularly claims without evidence that immigration undermines the welfare state, and habitually treats the concepts of cultural diversity, immigration and race as if the terms were interchangeable, is exonerating him without a fair consideration of the facts.

It's worth actually just reading the article before making these declarations I think. Also Goodhart doesn't make these statements without evidence, he actually tends to provide plenty to evidence to back up what he says. Go read his books. The interchangable claim is something I'm not sure where you are getting that so you'd want to back that up.

[Liffguard]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Well I guess if you don’t count The Guardian,

Liberal, not left-wing, with the exception of a couple of commentators.

 

Quote

independent

Liberal, not left-wing.

 

Quote

the BBC

Liberal, not left-wing, and ardent defenders of the establishment.

 

Quote

Channel 4

Liberal, not left-wing.

 

Quote

the internet

"The internet" is not a media source.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the Mirror's output to comment.

The media landscape within the UK adheres well to Chomsky's maxim that the most effective form of censorship is to only allow a narrow range of acceptable ideology, but permit a lively debate within that narrow range.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Liffguard said:

Liberal, not left-wing, with the exception of a couple of commentators.

 

Liberal, not left-wing.

 

Liberal, not left-wing, and ardent defenders of the establishment.

 

Liberal, not left-wing.

 

"The internet" is not a media source.

 

I'm not familiar enough with the Mirror's output to comment.

The media landscape within the UK adheres well to Chomsky's maxim that the most effective form of censorship is to only allow a narrow range of acceptable ideology, but permit a lively debate within that narrow range.

Ok lets say liberal then, I basically mean not conservative or right wing. I think you are splitting hairs here. If you just want to count 'socialist worker' as a left wing newspaper.