Wealthy political influencers are behind Britain’s answer to Fox News – but pluralistic discussion is not the same as claiming to speak up for 'the people' while talking down to them
Excellent article, which examines many of the issues which I try to understand. The section on "reverse victimhood" I found especially enlightening. It put into calm, reasoned words what I feel about the behaviour of so many of these right wing populists. I only wish I did not feel so angry and could have less hatred regarding their views. Your article made me ashamed of my rage, it does not help anyone.
It is so obviously correct when you write, " there is a way to talk about topics we don’t agree on (difference, in any society, being a given) without it being reduced to resentment, rigidity, and rage. " If only more of our journalists, MPs and "celebrities" would practice this. Thank you.
I struggle with this. Regardless of the side I might choose to take in this culture discussion, I fail to see what the desired outcomes look like.
On the GB News-esque side I can (almost) see the power and wealth argument - because nothing else makes much sense. But on the other side I am lost.
As a child of desperately poor white parents and part of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith family today, I don’t know what purpose the ‘other’ serves.
I recall at university being berated as ‘institutionally’ racist because I’m white back in 1993. Given what I experienced of family then as now, it was utter nonsense. I asked: Have you heard how Pakistanis and Afro-Caribbean folk round here talk to each other? And then gave examples to my all white college audience. That shut them up.
And then we have the most recent stats on hate crime. How does that dovetail to any participants in this discussion?
Excellent article, which examines many of the issues which I try to understand. The section on "reverse victimhood" I found especially enlightening. It put into calm, reasoned words what I feel about the behaviour of so many of these right wing populists. I only wish I did not feel so angry and could have less hatred regarding their views. Your article made me ashamed of my rage, it does not help anyone.
It is so obviously correct when you write, " there is a way to talk about topics we don’t agree on (difference, in any society, being a given) without it being reduced to resentment, rigidity, and rage. " If only more of our journalists, MPs and "celebrities" would practice this. Thank you.
I struggle with this. Regardless of the side I might choose to take in this culture discussion, I fail to see what the desired outcomes look like.
On the GB News-esque side I can (almost) see the power and wealth argument - because nothing else makes much sense. But on the other side I am lost.
As a child of desperately poor white parents and part of a multi-ethnic, multi-faith family today, I don’t know what purpose the ‘other’ serves.
I recall at university being berated as ‘institutionally’ racist because I’m white back in 1993. Given what I experienced of family then as now, it was utter nonsense. I asked: Have you heard how Pakistanis and Afro-Caribbean folk round here talk to each other? And then gave examples to my all white college audience. That shut them up.
And then we have the most recent stats on hate crime. How does that dovetail to any participants in this discussion?