Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

[Rjk]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

You're in complete denial if you don't believe there is a problem with the British psyche when it comes to black and brown people - especially women. If Nazanin had been white with a traditional 'English' name and raised important points about why she was held for 6 years while her own government did nothing, apart from make it worse, there wouldn't be the same distasteful media responses. If you can't see that, then honestly you are a part of the problem.

The double standards are clear. Look at the media and Meghan Markle... astonishing.

https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-...mpaign=organic

I think (with no real way to prove it) that most of the people criticising her seem to be the type who will leap to the defence of the political right whenever they perceive that anyone is criticising them, so if she was white these people would probably still be criticising her.

you are right about the double standards in general in this country, so that would surely have some effect. the treatment of Meghan Markle is a classic example

[JamesWales]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

I think (with no real way to prove it) that most of the people criticising her seem to be the type who will leap to the defence of the political right whenever they perceive that anyone is criticising them, so if she was white these people would probably still be criticising her.

you are right about the double standards in general in this country, so that would surely have some effect. the treatment of Meghan Markle is a classic example

Is it though? I'm not saying she has had a good press, she hasn't. But there is no evidence it's because she is of mixed race whatsoever. There are plenty in the royal family who get an appalling press. That may not be fair, but it's not down to race. As such, criticism of Meghan Markle can occur without it being racist.

Same goes when Raheem Sterling is criticised, perhaps unfairly. But the same goes for Rooney or Graham Taylor or David Beckham, all of whom have received dreadful abuse in the press at times.

And again, who is perhaps the most criticised MP in the country aside from the PM - I'd suggest that it's Priti Patel. Why is that NOT racism under this line of thinking?

[Rjk]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

[/B]

Is it though? I'm not saying she has had a good press, she hasn't. But there is no evidence it's because she is of mixed race whatsoever. There are plenty in the royal family who get an appalling press. That may not be fair, but it's not down to race. As such, criticism of Meghan Markle can occur without it being racist.

Same goes when Raheem Sterling is criticised, perhaps unfairly. But the same goes for Rooney or Graham Taylor or David Beckham, all of whom have received dreadful abuse in the press at times.

And again, who is perhaps the most criticised MP in the country aside from the PM - I'd suggest that it's Priti Patel. Why is that NOT racism under this line of thinking?

the most criticised MP is probably still Diane Abbott, and it is definitely racially motivated.

there is definitely a racial element as part of a wider class element in the criticism of Markle, the exact same things she was criticized for doing, Kate Middleton was praised for , because she fit "our" expectations of a royal family member better.

individually it's difficult to identify single actions as racially motivated - but when you look at the bigger picture the pattern is undeniable, it's an ugly part of our society and it does us no favours to pretend it isn't there.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

[/B]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60771174

Is it though? I'm not saying she has had a good press, she hasn't. But there is no evidence it's because she is of mixed race whatsoever. There are plenty in the royal family who get an appalling press. That may not be fair, but it's not down to race. As such, criticism of Meghan Markle can occur without it being racist.

Same goes when Raheem Sterling is criticised, perhaps unfairly. But the same goes for Rooney or Graham Taylor or David Beckham, all of whom have received dreadful abuse in the press at times.

And again, who is perhaps the most criticised MP in the country aside from the PM - I'd suggest that it's Priti Patel. Why is that NOT racism under this line of thinking?

That’s just whataboutery though isn’t it. What you say may be true to an extent (in fact I think it is), but you’re being very naive if you think that none of the criticism of Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe or Meghan Markle is based on the colour of their skin and/or their gender.

Let’s be honest as well, the identity of the people implying that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe should be “more grateful” for her release in this thread hardly comes as a surprise does it, just as the identity of those defending her wouldn’t.

[JamesWales]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

the most criticised MP is probably still Diane Abbott, and it is definitely racially motivated.

there is definitely a racial element as part of a wider class element in the criticism of Markle, the exact same things she was criticized for doing, Kate Middleton was praised for , because she fit "our" expectations of a royal family member better.

individually it's difficult to identify single actions as racially motivated - but when you look at the bigger picture the pattern is undeniable, it's an ugly part of our society and it does us no favours to pretend it isn't there.

The stuff about Meghan Markle is so unbelievably cherry-picked. It ignores that many members of the royal family get criticised and it offers no evidence that it's racially motivated. I agree that KAte Middleton does get a very good press but thats because she barely puts a foot wrong and is, like it or not, dutiful in her role.

According to this report analysing the 2019 General Election the most abused MPs were

https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00236-9

1 -Boris Johnson
2 - Jeremy Corbyn
3 - Matt Hancock
4 - Michael Gove
5 - David Lammy
6 - Jo Swinson
7 - James Cleverly
8 - Jacob Rees Mogg
9 - Sajid Javid
10 - Diane Abbott
Source: https://epjdatascience.springeropen....236-9/tables/4

If you look at Fig10 you will see the biggest single recipient and cause of abuse is Conservatives over Brexit.

Do some people send racists tweets? Unfortunately so. Is abuse greater for non-white people or women? I don't believe so.

Is it possible to criticise Priti Patel, Dianne Abbott, Nazanin Zeghari-Ratcliffe and it not be due to racist sentiment? Abso fecking lutely.

[JamesWales]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

That’s just whataboutery though isn’t it. What you say may be true to an extent (in fact I think it is), but you’re being very naive if you think that none of the criticism of Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe or Meghan Markle is based on the colour of their skin and/or their gender.

Let’s be honest as well, the identity of the people implying that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe should be “more grateful” for her release in this thread hardly comes as a surprise does it, just as the identity of those defending her wouldn’t.

But whataboutery in this case is evidence to prove a point.

If I am rude to someone and they say "you were rude to me because of my race", and I say, well what about these other 10 people I've been rude to, it demonstrates that I was rude, but probably not due to your race, as I was treating other people the same.

I of course would never be rude to anyone and I love you all.

[jon1959]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

A better example is probably that communists and nazis both ran concentration camps that to a greater or lesser extent worked people to death based on characteristics not of their own making.

As did the British government when they invented concentration camps in South Africa for people with characteristics (nationality) not of their own making. So probably not 'a better example'.

[JamesWales]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

As did the British government when they invented concentration camps in South Africa for people with characteristics (nationality) not of their own making. So probably not 'a better example'.

Yes, Britain invented concentration camps - although the word has gathered a significantly different meaning in time.

That doesn't change the fact that far-right and far-left can be equally repulsive and share many traits - cruelty, economic incompetence, extreme nationalism, hero worship of leaders and iconography, the need to shut down free speech etc etc etc.

[Undercoverinwurzelland]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

The thing is though, if you look at the accounts on twitter that were having a go at NZR, then look at what else they tweet about, a great many of them tweet almost exclusively about immigrants, Muslims, BLM, Meghan, Johnson, Trump, Farage, Brexit... A definite pattern, I'd say.

[JamesWales]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

The thing is though, if you look at the accounts on twitter that were having a go at NZR, then look at what else they tweet about, a great many of them tweet almost exclusively about immigrants, Muslims, BLM, Meghan, Johnson, Trump, Farage, Brexit... A definite pattern, I'd say.

So people say, but I just typed her name in and didn't see that.

You are correct though, there will be a pattern for some, but I don't think it's her ethnicity, more a general criticism and frustration at a perceived "anti british" tone.

Twitter is a curse mind. It goes both ways. Look at people who abuse Priti Patel and you'll find a big link to people going on about brexit / #toryscum / FBPE, sharing articles by the chief lord of smug James O'Brien and his royal smugness Jolyon Maugham etc.

Thankfully twitter isn't real life.

My point remains; it's perfectly possible to criticise anyone about anything without it being about their skin colour. We all know this to be true so I don't know why we pretend otherwise.

[delmbox]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

And you always like to have the last say. I bet you pop up in two ticks..

Number of JamesWales posts in this thread since posting this - 6

[az city]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

The stuff about Meghan Markle is so unbelievably cherry-picked. It ignores that many members of the royal family get criticised and it offers no evidence that it's racially motivated. I agree that KAte Middleton does get a very good press but thats because she barely puts a foot wrong and is, like it or not, dutiful in her role.

According to this report analysing the 2019 General Election the most abused MPs were

https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-020-00236-9

1 -Boris Johnson
2 - Jeremy Corbyn
3 - Matt Hancock
4 - Michael Gove
5 - David Lammy
6 - Jo Swinson
7 - James Cleverly
8 - Jacob Rees Mogg
9 - Sajid Javid
10 - Diane Abbott
Source: https://epjdatascience.springeropen....236-9/tables/4

If you look at Fig10 you will see the biggest single recipient and cause of abuse is Conservatives over Brexit.

Do some people send racists tweets? Unfortunately so. Is abuse greater for non-white people or women? I don't believe so.

Is it possible to criticise Priti Patel, Dianne Abbott, Nazanin Zeghari-Ratcliffe and it not be due to racist sentiment? Abso fecking lutely.

The last paragraph from the work you chose to quote as your "evidence":

"Social aspects of sexist and racist abuse make it complex to interpret, and our approach to categorising this has been cautious in defining both broadly, to include abuse towards the majority as well as minority. Despite this we have found significant grounds for concern about the discrimination politicians are subjected to. However details of the social context make a difference to the harm caused by hate speech, and an empirical study exploring how terms are used within and across groups, for example between men, or by women to men, may allow for greater specificity in future work."

Doesn't seem to chime with your selective use of their study.

BTW I looked at the study and I'd say there is far too much noise in their data and their method (of using a form of imposed structural equation econometrics) is unlikely to yield robust inferences. It would be interesting what a good data scientist with a richer dataset would find in this area.

[JamesWales]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Number of JamesWales posts in this thread since posting this - 6

What a way to spend your Friday evening mate..

[JamesWales]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

The last paragraph from the work you chose to quote as your "evidence":

"Social aspects of sexist and racist abuse make it complex to interpret, and our approach to categorising this has been cautious in defining both broadly, to include abuse towards the majority as well as minority. Despite this we have found significant grounds for concern about the discrimination politicians are subjected to. However details of the social context make a difference to the harm caused by hate speech, and an empirical study exploring how terms are used within and across groups, for example between men, or by women to men, may allow for greater specificity in future work."

Doesn't seem to chime with your selective use of their study.

BTW I looked at the study and I'd say there is far too much noise in their data and their method (of using a form of imposed structural equation econometrics) is unlikely to yield robust inferences. It would be interesting what a good data scientist with a richer dataset would find in this area.

More studies are always welcome. The fact remains, and I would say that this is my experience, that the politicians most abused in their study, by a long way are two white men. There's data to suggest alternatives, but the implication that no one can critique someone from a monitory without racist intent is plainly false, and really unhelpful and divisive too

[az city]

Re: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

More studies are always welcome. The fact remains, and I would say that this is my experience, that the politicians most abused in their study, by a long way are two white men. There's data to suggest alternatives, but the implication that no one can critique someone from a monitory without racist intent is plainly false, and really unhelpful and divisive too

Huh? I don't think anyone in the thread suggested this. Clearly some people critique politicians purely on the basis of their "performance".

What you're effectively doing, repeatedly, is refusing to accept that a lot of abuse NZR got was motivated by pro-establishment bigots. And it clearly is.