Laurence Fox - New Political Party
Discussion
doesthiswork said:
I'm sure I'll have to defer to your expertise, but right now I can't see the relationship between the first chart you posted and the second one - my comment was implying that despite the 'white British' group being at the bottom of your original chart, they manage to turn things around when you look at overall average earnings in the UK, coming either second or third, after Chinese and Indian groups.
In your second chart my immediate reaction would be that the Chinese ethnicity group is artificially boosting the BME results, but having said that, why would you expect any difference at all?
Overall average earnings are unadjusted for age differentials. Men earn most between 40-49.In your second chart my immediate reaction would be that the Chinese ethnicity group is artificially boosting the BME results, but having said that, why would you expect any difference at all?
Murph7355 said:
doesthiswork said:
I was originally commenting on this particular upper class, wealthy, privileged white man, but to be honest, most upper class, wealthy, privileged white men are going to be on the back foot if they take it upon themselves to deny racism is a problem when it's somewhat unlikely they will have suffered it themselves.
Then your original note on it was clumsily worded.Murph7355 said:
If you'd noted that people who cannot express their arguments well will get less air time, or people who by their own admission are too stupid to have the debate are likely to be dismissed, then you would have agreement.
Laurence Fox can't express his argument well, and by his own admission isn't very smart. Yet he has a voice which is being amplified, and has managed to attract a considerable amount of money to back his scheme. I'd argue that at least some elements of being an u-c, w, p, w, m have helped him considerably here. Murph7355 said:
As it is, you specifically mentioned race, class and privilege. Those things do not automatically make your opinion less valuable. Or shouldn't.
Not automatically, no. On this particular subject though, I would say, on balance of probability, likely. We don't approach things by wiping any previous experience. If certain groups have proved unreliable when commenting on certain subjects in the past, you are less likely to *expect* them to bring something worthwhile to the table this time round. Laurence has confirmed my expectations.
He'll trouser a fair few quid in donations from right wing loons previously aligned with UKIP, say a few edgy comments on TV and Twitter then hopefully disappear up his own fundament,
In my view he's burned many bridges in his future acting career by ploughing this particular furrow, but from a Tweet of his I saw yesterday he seems happy to take that risk. Let's hope for his sake he doesn't go the route of Katie Hopkins, but I dare say he'll bail before saying too much.
Very, very creepy relationship with his cousin Emilia on Celebrity Gogglebox, as a side note. I doubt C4 will be asking him back.
In my view he's burned many bridges in his future acting career by ploughing this particular furrow, but from a Tweet of his I saw yesterday he seems happy to take that risk. Let's hope for his sake he doesn't go the route of Katie Hopkins, but I dare say he'll bail before saying too much.
Very, very creepy relationship with his cousin Emilia on Celebrity Gogglebox, as a side note. I doubt C4 will be asking him back.
His point isn't just about race and even when it is about race it's more about the nature of the discourse around race that occurs.
He's against the method of arguing someone isn't allowed a voice because of their identity.
He's against those that pursue a cause in a certain manner but vilify anyone who doesn't agree with that manner by labelling them as the problem that their movement is against.
With us or against us. You are x, or you are not y, so shut up.
Examples on here - calling him a loon.
Listing his personal characteristics that discount the worthiness of his voice, instead of judging him by his words and actions. So if he's wealthy we don't listen? If he's male we don't listen? If he's not from a disadvantaged background we don't listen? If he's white we don't listen?
So if someone does tick all the boxes, or a certain number of the right boxes, but they happen to be an evil psychopath we still have to give them the credence that he is not allowed?
The same goes for bringing up names like Katie Hopkins to discredit him, regardless of whether he has anything to do with her and regardless of the nature of the dialogue that he may pursue if he were to choose to speak to her.
He's against the method of arguing someone isn't allowed a voice because of their identity.
He's against those that pursue a cause in a certain manner but vilify anyone who doesn't agree with that manner by labelling them as the problem that their movement is against.
With us or against us. You are x, or you are not y, so shut up.
Examples on here - calling him a loon.
Listing his personal characteristics that discount the worthiness of his voice, instead of judging him by his words and actions. So if he's wealthy we don't listen? If he's male we don't listen? If he's not from a disadvantaged background we don't listen? If he's white we don't listen?
So if someone does tick all the boxes, or a certain number of the right boxes, but they happen to be an evil psychopath we still have to give them the credence that he is not allowed?
The same goes for bringing up names like Katie Hopkins to discredit him, regardless of whether he has anything to do with her and regardless of the nature of the dialogue that he may pursue if he were to choose to speak to her.
Murph7355 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed.Not convinced it's a strong enough foundation to build a political party from though. And without that, the gasbags in the HoP have no incentive to change sadly.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Actually, why should we listen to him at all? He seems to be angry but not hugely bright, is bringing nothing new to the conversation, and is known only because he’s a rich actor from an acting family. He’s welcome to say what he likes, but I can’t think of a single reason to care. I suspect he’ll garner a few fanboys but otherwise will meet a massive wall of indifference.
longblackcoat said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Actually, why should we listen to him at all? He seems to be angry but not hugely bright, is bringing nothing new to the conversation, and is known only because he’s a rich actor from an acting family. He’s welcome to say what he likes, but I can’t think of a single reason to care. I suspect he’ll garner a few fanboys but otherwise will meet a massive wall of indifference.
Fox, Hopkins, Farage, Tommy Robinson weird that people keep finding criticism of the sort promoting these messages about ‘reclaiming British values’ which are usually just fanning flames of bigotry and stoking up divisions.
El stovey said:
longblackcoat said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Actually, why should we listen to him at all? He seems to be angry but not hugely bright, is bringing nothing new to the conversation, and is known only because he’s a rich actor from an acting family. He’s welcome to say what he likes, but I can’t think of a single reason to care. I suspect he’ll garner a few fanboys but otherwise will meet a massive wall of indifference.
Fox, Hopkins, Farage, Tommy Robinson weird that people keep finding criticism of the sort promoting these messages about ‘reclaiming British values’ which are usually just fanning flames of bigotry and stoking up divisions.
I didn't suggest we had to listen to him at all and didn't say he shouldn't be criticised. I said that we should judge him by his words and his actions. I said that his social standing, gender and race shouldn't be used as a means to discount his opinions outright.
Labels again though, 'of the sort', pigeonholing, associating, categorising.
What I do think we need to do is to listen to what people say and rationally break that down if it's wrong. Sometimes people are too quick to decide that someone else is a 'baddie' and that nothing they say will ever be worth considering or engaging with.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why not? If I want to know what the new Honda Civic Type R is like to drive whose viewpoint do I place more value on - a professional racing driver who has driven one for 1000s of miles and who has also driven lots of other contemporary hot hatches or someone who has never driven it, has no interest in cars or driving and who doesn't even have a driving license? They can both have opinions but I'm only going to treat one as relevant. We can all have and express opinions but they are absolutely not all worth the same. The idea that they are, and that all opinons deserve equal weight and consideration and must be free from condemnation or criticism in the name of free speech, is one of the more insidious and damaging trends in 21st century discourse.
Laurence Fox absolutely has a right to go on Question Time and tell the world how he thinks that the UK is "the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe" and that the real racists are people who keep talking about racism and the real sexists are the people who keep talking about sexism...but everyone else is at liberty to point out that, in saying that, he's clearly demonstrating that he hasn't got the first clue what he's talking about because he's part of numerous demographic groups (white, male, straight, rich etc.) that just don't experience the very things he's pontificating on in the way that minority groups do (e.g. "racism can also be deferential" - ffs!). And when this is pointed out to him he doesn't take it as a learning moment, but doubles down on his views and goes on to form a political party to propogate his opinions. And that fragility is also a sign of privilege.
The woman on QT could have "rationally broken down" everything that was wrong with Fox's statement, but it would take ages and all she'd be doing is unpacking the shorter, more aposite statement that he doesn't know what he's talking about because of his social privileges
2xChevrons said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why not? If I want to know what the new Honda Civic Type R is like to drive whose viewpoint do I place more value on - a professional racing driver who has driven one for 1000s of miles and who has also driven lots of other contemporary hot hatches or someone who has never driven it, has no interest in cars or driving and who doesn't even have a driving license? Hopefully, the answer is "I wouldn't".
2xChevrons said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why not? If I want to know what the new Honda Civic Type R is like to drive whose viewpoint do I place more value on - a professional racing driver who has driven one for 1000s of miles and who has also driven lots of other contemporary hot hatches or someone who has never driven it, has no interest in cars or driving and who doesn't even have a driving license? They can both have opinions but I'm only going to treat one as relevant. We can all have and express opinions but they are absolutely not all worth the same. The idea that they are, and that all opinons deserve equal weight and consideration and must be free from condemnation or criticism in the name of free speech, is one of the more insidious and damaging trends in 21st century discourse.
Laurence Fox absolutely has a right to go on Question Time and tell the world how he thinks that the UK is "the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe" and that the real racists are people who keep talking about racism and the real sexists are the people who keep talking about sexism...but everyone else is at liberty to point out that, in saying that, he's clearly demonstrating that he hasn't got the first clue what he's talking about because he's part of numerous demographic groups (white, male, straight, rich etc.) that just don't experience the very things he's pontificating on in the way that minority groups do (e.g. "racism can also be deferential" - ffs!). And when this is pointed out to him he doesn't take it as a learning moment, but doubles down on his views and goes on to form a political party to propogate his opinions. And that fragility is also a sign of privilege.
The woman on QT could have "rationally broken down" everything that was wrong with Fox's statement, but it would take ages and all she'd be doing is unpacking the shorter, more aposite statement that he doesn't know what he's talking about because of his social privileges
We're talking about societal matters, not specific knowledge about a specific technical matter. The difference is we're all part of society but we're not all experts on cars. If you're part of society you have experience of interaction with others. That experience is knowledge and we all have it.
Let me ask you this - a discussion about racism between a white British man and a British woman of Chinese descent, who do you listen to the most?
2xChevrons said:
Why not? If I want to know what the new Honda Civic Type R is like to drive whose viewpoint do I place more value on - a professional racing driver who has driven one for 1000s of miles and who has also driven lots of other contemporary hot hatches or someone who has never driven it, has no interest in cars or driving and who doesn't even have a driving license?
They can both have opinions but I'm only going to treat one as relevant. We can all have and express opinions but they are absolutely not all worth the same. The idea that they are, and that all opinons deserve equal weight and consideration and must be free from condemnation or criticism in the name of free speech, is one of the more insidious and damaging trends in 21st century discourse.
The problem with that analogy is that it would be like someone saying they're a professional driver, then their opinion being dismissed out of hand because someone else decides they can't possibly have driven a real hot hatch.They can both have opinions but I'm only going to treat one as relevant. We can all have and express opinions but they are absolutely not all worth the same. The idea that they are, and that all opinons deserve equal weight and consideration and must be free from condemnation or criticism in the name of free speech, is one of the more insidious and damaging trends in 21st century discourse.
amusingduck said:
It'd be a better analogy if you could explain in which circumstances you would discount somebody's opinion outright on the Civic Type R because of their social standing, gender, or race.
Hopefully, the answer is "I wouldn't".
+1.Hopefully, the answer is "I wouldn't".
2CV, kudos for attempting to bring cars into the discussion though!
2xChevrons said:
Laurence Fox absolutely has a right to go on Question Time and tell the world how he thinks that the UK is "the most tolerant, lovely country in Europe" and that the real racists are people who keep talking about racism and the real sexists are the people who keep talking about sexism...
Well you obviously disagree with that statement so which European countries are more tolerant than the UK?As for the "real" racists that would include those who automatically shrilly condemn white folk and say they should spend their time apologising for things that happened centuries ago.
Until people take the time to slowly and rationally debate topics with people they disagree with we will only have more political polarisation.
Discounting someone on the basis that they can't possibly have a worthwhile opinion on a topic because of the colour of their skin, or their sex, or their age, or their upbringing, etc. is a great method to get people like Trump in power.
Can we please bring back debate? It doesn't have to be publicised debate. Just discussion.
I live in Germany. The only party that highlighted the need to improve border controls were the AFD. They became popular, because none of the other parties would highlight or discuss fears that a large proportion of the population experienced. Some of the fears are rational and some are irrational. It's like the mainstream parties were muted on the whole topic. Why do more radical parties form to discuss the topics?
Discounting someone on the basis that they can't possibly have a worthwhile opinion on a topic because of the colour of their skin, or their sex, or their age, or their upbringing, etc. is a great method to get people like Trump in power.
Can we please bring back debate? It doesn't have to be publicised debate. Just discussion.
I live in Germany. The only party that highlighted the need to improve border controls were the AFD. They became popular, because none of the other parties would highlight or discuss fears that a large proportion of the population experienced. Some of the fears are rational and some are irrational. It's like the mainstream parties were muted on the whole topic. Why do more radical parties form to discuss the topics?
El stovey said:
Do they never wonder why people promoting these ideas, always need to be defended so much?
Fox, Hopkins, Farage, Tommy Robinson weird that people keep finding criticism of the sort promoting these messages about ‘reclaiming British values’ which are usually just fanning flames of bigotry and stoking up divisions.
Perhaps they need to be defended because of people who blindly attack those who deviate from the left wing orthodoxy.Fox, Hopkins, Farage, Tommy Robinson weird that people keep finding criticism of the sort promoting these messages about ‘reclaiming British values’ which are usually just fanning flames of bigotry and stoking up divisions.
An example of such hysterical attacks would be linking people who want to defend freedom of speech, and don't want to spend their lives apologising for some mostly invented white male privilege, with the English Defence league.....
JagLover said:
El stovey said:
Do they never wonder why people promoting these ideas, always need to be defended so much?
Fox, Hopkins, Farage, Tommy Robinson weird that people keep finding criticism of the sort promoting these messages about ‘reclaiming British values’ which are usually just fanning flames of bigotry and stoking up divisions.
Perhaps they need to be defended because of people who blindly attack those who deviate from the left wing orthodoxy.Fox, Hopkins, Farage, Tommy Robinson weird that people keep finding criticism of the sort promoting these messages about ‘reclaiming British values’ which are usually just fanning flames of bigotry and stoking up divisions.
An example of such hysterical attacks would be linking people who want to defend freedom of speech, and don't want to spend their lives apologising for some mostly invented white male privilege, with the English Defence league.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff