Balanced Question Time panel tonight - of course not! Vol 3
Discussion
DeepEnd said:
He is getting praise on here from many as I said. See the Owen Jones thread. That is not necessarily a good thing.
He’s being roasted elsewhere, and rightly so.
He's simply being 'roasted' by the same old suspects to whom any denial that this country is somehow 'institutionally' racist is like a red rag to a bullHe’s being roasted elsewhere, and rightly so.
His comment about racism being 'boring' was directed specifically at the explanation that the media criticism - as opposed to undoubtedly deeply unpleasant social media abuse - meted out to the Duchess of Sussex is by nature motivated by racist intent (without any proof whatsoever - it's just 'obvious' to those who can see it, apparently). It was made in the context that there seems to be an increasing unwillingness by many (i.e. the Twitter mob) to consider anything but racism as an explanation for the negative treatment of/opportunities offered to/outcomes pertaining to an individual who might identified as black or ethnic minority.
DeepEnd said:
He’s being roasted elsewhere, and rightly so.
Both sides hate having their views challenged. Being praised to the roof or shouted down is not a proof that those views are 'right' or 'wrong', just an indication of how much those groups want vindication or vilification. Fox's response to Shami was a pretty good expression of the frustration some people feel when a viewpoint is attacked not by reason, but by lazy accusations of sexism or racism. Reminds me of the Brexit threads...
Tuna said:
Both sides hate having their views challenged. Being praised to the roof or shouted down is not a proof that those views are 'right' or 'wrong', just an indication of how much those groups want vindication or vilification.
Fox's response to Shami was a pretty good expression of the frustration some people feel when a viewpoint is attacked not by reason, but by lazy accusations of sexism or racism. Reminds me of the Brexit threads...
Do you think Meghan Markle has not been subjected to any racism by the media?Fox's response to Shami was a pretty good expression of the frustration some people feel when a viewpoint is attacked not by reason, but by lazy accusations of sexism or racism. Reminds me of the Brexit threads...
DeepEnd said:
It’s a deflection, that’s the point.
Person A “look at the increased anti polish racism post brexit”
Person B “the UK is very tolerant, more tolerant than others”
Why can’t Person B just agree and recognise the racism? Why do they prefer to argue and make an argument to say the UK is better than nation X and therefore Person A somehow should not bring up that racism.
That is L Foxs argument as a Person B. It’s apologetic and gives the impression Person B actually agrees with the view/racism but is in denial about it being racism.
On the assumption that there is an increase in anti-Polish racism post brexit (which hasn’t happened yet of course):Person A “look at the increased anti polish racism post brexit”
Person B “the UK is very tolerant, more tolerant than others”
Why can’t Person B just agree and recognise the racism? Why do they prefer to argue and make an argument to say the UK is better than nation X and therefore Person A somehow should not bring up that racism.
That is L Foxs argument as a Person B. It’s apologetic and gives the impression Person B actually agrees with the view/racism but is in denial about it being racism.
You attribute B to be dismissing A’s point of view, whereas A appears to be dismissing the UK as racist.
That there are sections of the UK that are racist is correct. The tabloid press is overtly racist and the broadsheets are subtly racist, both at times.
If the basis of the press criticism of Markle was as a result of racism – an arguable point, especially when one remembers the initial coverage of the betrothal – then the press should be held to account, as it can be under our legislation. Another way of looking at it is that the press love to elevate someone only to knock them down later. They have done this for years, regardless of race.
I’m not sure why the white, middle class should be dragged into this. They don’t run the press. That, I think, is a classic case of deflection. Blame the whipping boy for easy points.
The UK is remarkable tolerant, and has been so historically. We should rejoice in this. If someone criticises the UK as racist, then they should be challenged. If someone criticises aspects of society as racists, then we should listen. However, it is an easy accusation to make, and there is normally a lot of assumptions on behalf of the accusers.
Tuna said:
I was thinking more of his response to Shami complaining about him endorsing Starmer.
The main story that was being discussed (and why he's being roasted by some) is about how he responded to Rachel Boyle. She brought up the issue of the media tearing Markle to bits and the racism aspect to that.
His response was to completely dismiss what she said, point out the UK is less racist that other countries (sounds familiar?) and then accused her of being racist (hang on he said the UK wasn't racist.......again, also familiar!)
You'd see that exchange as grey and 50/50?
Was it appropriate for him to completely dismiss (in a very arrogant way) her highlighting racism in the mauling Markle has had to endure?
techiedave said:
Hilariously he has been attacked by Lily Allen
I will try and finf the wording she uses but its so ironic its almost pure parody
clicky piccy - https://twitter.com/LozzaFox/status/12185112550796...I will try and finf the wording she uses but its so ironic its almost pure parody
The whole Meghan M thing is a spectacle to behold.
So many white people I know don't see their own bias towards her. They don’t like her for some reason but I have never really heard anyone of them come up with a good reason why they don’t like. Terrible actress, American etc are all pretty good reasons.
But yet everyone of them will absolutely deny it has anything to do with her being non-white.
She seems pretty normal to me, but boy does she boil some peoples piss. I could give zero f
ks who Harry marries. I still can’t detect any logical reason why people don’t like her, other than the non-whiteness.
I reckon about 80% of the working class (white) people i know/ have met ARE racist (I’m from a white working class family). Certainly not in an extrovert way, but hang around with them for a while and their guard goes down and you know they are. Some of them even have friends that are Black/Asian.
So many white people I know don't see their own bias towards her. They don’t like her for some reason but I have never really heard anyone of them come up with a good reason why they don’t like. Terrible actress, American etc are all pretty good reasons.
But yet everyone of them will absolutely deny it has anything to do with her being non-white.
She seems pretty normal to me, but boy does she boil some peoples piss. I could give zero f
ks who Harry marries. I still can’t detect any logical reason why people don’t like her, other than the non-whiteness.I reckon about 80% of the working class (white) people i know/ have met ARE racist (I’m from a white working class family). Certainly not in an extrovert way, but hang around with them for a while and their guard goes down and you know they are. Some of them even have friends that are Black/Asian.
DeepEnd said:
The main story that was being discussed (and why he's being roasted by some) is about how he responded to Rachel Boyle.
She brought up the issue of the media tearing Markle to bits and the racism aspect to that.
She implied that the only possible reason for the press to criticise a person of colour was because they were a person of colour. Do you think that's true?She brought up the issue of the media tearing Markle to bits and the racism aspect to that.
sugerbear said:
I reckon about 80% of the working class (white) people i know/ have met ARE racist (I’m from a white working class family). Certainly not in an extrovert way, but hang around with them for a while and their guard goes down and you know they are. Some of them even have friends that are Black/Asian.
OK 
Tuna said:
She implied that the only possible reason for the press to criticise a person of colour was because they were a person of colour. Do you think that's true?
She said the press had torn her apart and did call it racism. Media snippets have included "Exotic DNA, outta Compton" etc. and the difference in reporting between Kate and Meghan on literally the same subjects has been stark.
Fox bluntly said "It's not racism".
Sure some of it might just be down to the media being complete a
holes towards her just because they are aholes, but to say there is no racism is a bit naive, if you're being generous, and actually not helpful as it encourages those with those views - as demonstrated. In my opinion nobody is saying there is no racism. What people are objecting to is the slimy insinuation that because of some questionable views which may be racist then by inference the whole nation is racist or even that racist views predominate which is clear by evidence from multiple sources absolutely not the case.
DeepEnd said:
....
Sure some of it might just be down to the media being complete aholes towards her just because they are aholes, but to say there is no racism is a bit naive, if you're being generous, and actually not helpful as it encourages those with those views - as demonstrated.
You are being an example of what he was referring to.Sure some of it might just be down to the media being complete a
holes towards her just because they are aholes, but to say there is no racism is a bit naive, if you're being generous, and actually not helpful as it encourages those with those views - as demonstrated. Is it possible that there are multiple reasons why stories on MM were published other than her "race"?
Fox's point is that you're not allowed to mention those stories, dissuaded from doing so, for fear of being accused of being racist.
He's correct. As you are very ably proving.
I think you hit the nail on the head about why the media have done what they've done. They're a
holes. MM is in an industry where those aholes are courted. She is most definitely not afraid to do so. They deserve each other. Is this because she's black/mixed race? Nope. She's playing with fire and is getting burnt. There are many, many people from every race who have done the same and been treated the same. Cherry picking "like for like" but missing context comparisons of her against one other individual is pointless. And again underscores what Fox was on about.
(Incidentally, I'm no real fan of Fox. He was playing to the audience and comes across as trying too hard to be cool - hair do, tats, slouched back indignant attitude...good job he's white middle class otherwise I'd be confirming my racist credentials
).
sugerbear said:
She seems pretty normal to me, but boy does she boil some peoples piss. I could give zero fks who Harry marries. I still can’t detect any logical reason why people don’t like her, other than the non-whiteness.
Since when is non-whiteness a logical reason for not liking someone?ks who Harry marries. I still can’t detect any logical reason why people don’t like her, other than the non-whiteness.DeepEnd said:
Sure some of it might just be down to the media being complete aholes towards her just because they are aholes, but to say there is no racism is a bit naive, if you're being generous, and actually not helpful as it encourages those with those views - as demonstrated.
'As demonstrated' - who exactly are you accusing of being racist?holes towards her just because they are aholes, but to say there is no racism is a bit naive, if you're being generous, and actually not helpful as it encourages those with those views - as demonstrated. I've no real interest in Meghan or Kate, but it's pretty clear that this is a re-run of Diana and Fergie. The press thought the sun shone out of Diana's butt, whilst Fergie could do nothing right. That was the narrative and they stuck to it. It was nasty, naked prejudice and lazy journalism. The trouble is, like Spitting Image or Dead Ringers, it's easier to sell a story to your audience if they can identify an easy character to hang it off. (Remainers lapped up David Davis - British Bulldog because it fitted their narrative, and Bremner's George Bush is more George Bush than George Bush is)
So when the same thing happens with Kate and Meghan, not only is it missing the point to call it racist, it's actually giving the press a free pass for hounding Fergie (white person = perfectly valid target).
This is the problem with identity politics (that you clearly can't get your head around) - if you make it first and foremost about someone's identity, you fail to address the actual reason they're receiving criticism. It can be lazy, prejudiced journalism, or it can be valid criticism. Neither are actually addressed by running around shouting 'racist' just because someone is not white.
And that was the point of talking about Shami complaining that Fox didn't endorse a female candidate. He gave an (apparently) considered personal opinion that Starmer was the most capable to confront Boris' politics - but all that Shami cared about was that he was being 'sexist' by not naming a female candidate - regardless of their abilities.
Same thing. Identity over rational debate. Something you repeat again and again and... oooh look! Wacist!!!
Edited by Tuna on Sunday 19th January 11:46
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff