Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

For someone who never stops telling us all how reasonable and balanced your opinions are, you do tend to lose it when your views are challenged.

---

But when Jimbo offers her/his views s/he tends to confuse fact with opinion. Oh and s/he always has to have the last say. (Bet s/he pops up in two ticks...)

It seems to me there is an undercurrent of pro-establishment racist misogyny around the criticism of Nazanin's intelligent unwillingness to bend the knee. I think Marina Hyde has partially captured that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

But when Jimbo offers her/his views s/he tends to confuse fact with opinion. Oh and s/he always has to have the last say. (Bet s/he pops up in two ticks...)

It seems to me there is an undercurrent of pro-establishment racist misogyny around the criticism of Nazanin's intelligent unwillingness to bend the knee. I think Marina Hyde has partially captured that.

---

:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Citizen's Nephew

:thumbup:

---

Marina Hyde's piece was brilliant and gives a depressing commentary on a huge segment of British society these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

You can draw a full circle of far left and right politics and they end up at the same point fascists, Marxists ,neo socialist even Liberals in some societies .

Interesting book :

https://jonahgoldberg.com/liberal-fascism/

---

Go on, I'll bite.

That tedious book based on an out of context comment from HG Wells does not make the argument that 'far left' and 'far right' end up at the same point. It is a popular view (TOBW seems to share it in another post) but in my view it is nonsense - other than an observation that people outside the establishment and outside control of state institutions (until they gain control) will use similar methods of organisation, propaganda and protest.

The only way it is not nonsense is in the sense that when 5,000 German communists were caged in Dachau on 21 March 1933, they occupied the same space as several hundred Nazi guards. Very few of those communists (or the other communists, socialists, trades unionists that followed them into the 'far right' death camps - especially but not only the Jewish ones) survived the experience of their co-existence when the two ends of your circle met.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Oh give us a break. I don't even believe you think this at all - it's just a lazy trope. The same could be said of any criticism of Liz Truss (a woman) or Priti Patel (A woman of colour). You may be obsessed with peoples skin colours. Most people aren't.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Go on, I'll bite.

That tedious book based on an out of context comment from HG Wells does not make the argument that 'far left' and 'far right' end up at the same point. It is a popular view (TOBW seems to share it in another post) but in my view it is nonsense - other than an observation that people outside the establishment and outside control of state institutions (until they gain control) will use similar methods of organisation, propaganda and protest.

The only way it is not nonsense is in the sense that when 5,000 German communists were caged in Dachau on 21 March 1933, they occupied the same space as several hundred Nazi guards. Very few of those communists (or the other communists, socialists, trades unionists that followed them into the 'far right' death camps - especially but not only the Jewish ones) survived the experience of their co-existence when the two ends of your circle met.

---

Top post. Second paragraph is brilliant Jon. :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AfricanBluebird

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 completely disagree with you and you are stirring the race pot with zero evidence whatsoever.

Two of the three most important positions in running the UK are held by people of Asian heritage, one of whom is a woman. Of course, you are allowed to criticise her without being racist, but no one is capable of criticising someone else without being racist?

Meghan Markle isn't criticised in the media because she has a black mother. No more than Diana, or Harry, or Fergie or Andrew or Charles or Camilla Parker Bowles were criticised for being white.

Theres just zero evidence to this stuff and you seem determined to create divisions based on skin colour when none exist (in this instance). Thats not to deny that some people in Britain are racists but its unhealthy to tie your obsession with it to everyone else.

You are basically saying no one can criticise anyone of colour because its racist (unless they are a Tory of course, in which case its fine!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

But when Jimbo offers her/his views s/he tends to confuse fact with opinion. Oh and s/he always has to have the last say. (Bet s/he pops up in two ticks...)

It seems to me there is an undercurrent of pro-establishment racist misogyny around the criticism of Nazanin's intelligent unwillingness to bend the knee. I think Marina Hyde has partially captured that.

---

It's just ironic coming from you, because we've had numerous discussions, I always cite them with economic data, you literally never do.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AfricanBluebird

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 do have a problem with the phrase. Like it or nor Iran is also her own government and as she chose/chooses to remain an Iranian citizen she is subject to Iran's laws, whether those laws agree with our sentiments or not.
In accordance with their own laws they had every right to detain change sentence and imprison her, and in international law they do nothing wrong.
The justification for their actions and the moral argument about their view of the world are different matters.
They also had every right to completely ignore any pleas from UK to release 'it's ' citizen but they chose instead to engage with the UK Government for their own ends.
If they had said "She is Iranian and it is nothing to do with anyone else then completely ignored any attempt to discuss it there would have been nothing anyone could have done about it.
Instead of automatically blaming the government inaction or being slow why not consider that they continued to make efforts and eventually succeeded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Go on, I'll bite.

That tedious book based on an out of context comment from HG Wells does not make the argument that 'far left' and 'far right' end up at the same point. It is a popular view (TOBW seems to share it in another post) but in my view it is nonsense - other than an observation that people outside the establishment and outside control of state institutions (until they gain control) will use similar methods of organisation, propaganda and protest.

The only way it is not nonsense is in the sense that when 5,000 German communists were caged in Dachau on 21 March 1933, they occupied the same space as several hundred Nazi guards. Very few of those communists (or the other communists, socialists, trades unionists that followed them into the 'far right' death camps - especially but not only the Jewish ones) survived the experience of their co-existence when the two ends of your circle met.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AfricanBluebird

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

[/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

[/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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

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....88-020-00236-9

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

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'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

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....88-020-00236-9

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

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

---

What a way to spend your Friday evening mate..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

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.

---

That is what AfricanBluebird suggested on page 3.

On your second point...I mean, you accuse others of confusing fact with opinion. The irony is just breathtaking.

I literally post a link to an academic analysis of twitter abuse of politicians. You just repeat a few tropes.

Nonetheless, if indeed you and the others can accept that people can crititise someone of colour for something and that criticism can be irrelevant of race then I would consider this progress..

We all know that people on the left are allowed to hate on Priti Patel and it not be related to her skin colour or religion. Why can't the same privilege be applied to others? Why can't people be allowed to think someone didn't come across well on a press conference without it being related to skin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

That is what AfricanBluebird suggested on page 3.

On your second point...I mean, you accuse others of confusing fact with opinion. The irony is just breathtaking.

I literally post a link to an academic analysis of twitter abuse of politicians. You just repeat a few tropes.

Nonetheless, if indeed you and the others can accept that people can crititise someone of colour for something and that criticism can be irrelevant of race then I would consider this progress..

We all know that people on the left are allowed to hate on Priti Patel and it not be related to her skin colour or religion. Why can't the same privilege be applied to others? Why can't people be allowed to think someone didn't come across well on a press conference without it being related to skin?

---

Please read posts from others - before posting inaccurate bollocks - like the second sentence in my previous post.

I get it. You've discovered the word "irony". The problem is you don't understand what it means.

You genuinely cannot see that a lot of NZR's critics are motivated by racist, pro-establishment misogyny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

Please read posts from others - before posting inaccurate bollocks - like the second sentence in my previous post.

I get it. You've discovered the word "irony". The problem is you don't understand what it means.

You genuinely cannot see that a lot of NZR's critics are motivated by racist, pro-establishment misogyny?

---

Well you lording it as Lord Evidence when you always fail to present any is somewhat ironic. Again here you present an opinion about racist, pro-establishment misogyny and offer up zero evidence for that and then seem baffled that anyone dare view it differently to you.

I accepted ages ago that some criticism may be as you describe. No one disputes there's some racist pricks about.

The point is people can criticise someone of colour and their race be completely irrelevant to that criticism, and that, I would suggest is the case here and in most cases. Was there much criticism of NVR before that press release? I recollect none.

It's curious that some are so keen to talk up racial disharmony so much, even in cases where there is zero evidence for it occuring. It's a weird element of contemporary political debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Well you lording it as Lord Evidence when you always failure to present any is somewhat ironic.

I accepted ages ago that some may. No one disputes there's some racist pricks about. The point is people can criticise someone of colour and their race be completely irrelevant to that criticism, and that, I would suggest is the case here and in most cases. It's curious that some are so keen to talk up racial disharmony so much, even when there is zero evidence for it occuring. It's a weird element of contemporary political debate

---

That's a bit of an unintelligible word salad. Calm down, Jimbo - it's an internet message board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

That is what AfricanBluebird suggested on page 3.

On your second point...I mean, you accuse others of confusing fact with opinion. The irony is just breathtaking.

I literally post a link to an academic analysis of twitter abuse of politicians. You just repeat a few tropes.

Nonetheless, if indeed you and the others can accept that people can crititise someone of colour for something and that criticism can be irrelevant of race then I would consider this progress..

We all know that people on the left are allowed to hate on Priti Patel and it not be related to her skin colour or religion. Why can't the same privilege be applied to others? Why can't people be allowed to think someone didn't come across well on a press conference without it being related to skin?

---

I think you started before Page 3 by seeking to make some equivalence between the motivation of those criticising a woman who had been wrongly incarcerated for 6 years because she wasn't sufficiently grateful to the latest Foreign Secretary and those criticising a hard-nosed politician who:

undermined her own Foreign Secretary by holding undisclosed and unauthorised talks with a foreign power whilst part of a collective government sufficient to be dragged home in ignomy to be sacked:

Is a proven bully who broke the Ministerial Code but was protected by her Prime Minister sufficiently to see his own ethics commissioner resign in protest and

is engineering ridiculous plans to use the Royal Navy to turn back immigrants and asylum seekers.

Yet all the people criticising Patel are just as likely to be racist as the ones slagging off Nazarin Radcliffe.

Fair play. Cracking argument!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by az city

That's a bit of an unintelligible word salad. Calm down, Jimbo - it's an internet message board.

---

Is that your way of wishing me a pleasant evening?!

If so I return the good wishes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

I think you started before Page 3 by seeking to make some equivalence between the motivation of those criticising a woman who had been wrongly incarcerated for 6 years because she wasn't sufficiently grateful to the latest Foreign Secretary and those criticising a hard-nosed politician who:

undermined her own Foreign Secretary by holding undisclosed and unauthorised talks with a foreign power whilst part of a collective government sufficient to be dragged home in ignomy to be sacked:

Is a proven bully who broke the Ministerial Code but was protected by her Prime Minister sufficiently to see his own ethics commissioner resign in protest and

is engineering ridiculous plans to use the Royal Navy to turn back immigrants and asylum seekers.

Yet all the people criticising Patel are just as likely to be racist as the ones slagging off Nazarin Radcliffe.

Fair play. Cracking argument!

---

Ah but you are just using your own interpretation of those issues there. How do we know that subconsciously it's not because you are racist? For example there's numerous bullys in parliament. Do you mention the others to the same extent?

I understand why people would like and dislike Priti Patel, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliife, Diane Abbott, Boris Johnson, Corbyn..anyone..

In some cases it may be driven by racism. But theres no evidence whatsoever to suggest thats a driving force for many and certainly none to suggest that someone cannot criticise them without it being driven by racial prejudice.

I would suggest it's lazy, false and dangerous to just say "well they are only criticising her because they are racist"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

Ah but you are just using your own interpretation of those issues there. How do we know that subconsciously it's not because you are racist? For example there's numerous bullys in parliament. Do you mention the others to the same extent?

I understand why people would like and dislike Priti Patel, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliife, Diane Abbott, Boris Johnson, Corbyn..anyone..

In some cases it may be driven by racism. But theres no evidence whatsoever to suggest thats a driving force for many and certainly none to suggest that someone cannot criticise them without it being driven by racial prejudice.

I would suggest it's lazy, false and dangerous to just say "well they are only criticising her because they are racist"

---

You seem to have dug yourself into a ludicrous rhetoric cul-de-sac but hey, give me your interpretation of Patel's actions I listed so we can work out whether mine are subconsciously racist or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

You seem to have dug yourself into a ludicrous rhetoric cul-de-sac but hey, give me your interpretation of Patel's actions I listed so we can work out whether mine are subconsciously racist or not.

---

I was joking. I don't think you are racist. It's not me accusing people of being such with no evidence. It's others.

I'm the one arguing that people can criticise anyone, irrespective of background, and it not be related to their race or gender or anything else at all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

I was joking. I don't think you are racist. It's not me accusing people of being such with no evidence. It's others.

I'm the one arguing that people can criticise anyone, irrespective of background, and it not be related to their race or gender or anything else at all!

---

I didn't think you were, but you might have used a more sympathetic alternative than Priti Patel to make your point on subconscious bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

I didn't think you were, but you might have used a more sympathetic alternative than Priti Patel to make your point on subconscious bias.

---

You are right there, I probably could. Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid, James Cleverley perhaps. Maybe Liz Truss? Perhaps her abuse is just misogyny? Michael Fabricant is bisexual I believe. Explains his critics...etcetc etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

You are right there, I probably could. Rishi Sunak, Sajid Javid, James Cleverley perhaps. Maybe Liz Truss? Perhaps her abuse is just misogyny? Michael Fabricant is bisexual I believe. Explains his critics...etcetc etc etc.

---

Perhaps try someone who might have some equivalence to the reaction to the plight of Nazanin-Ratcliffe who isn't a Tory minister or politician. Then others might be able to appreciate the point you desperately want to prove!

https://twitter.com/FullFact/status/...SWtIUlzdA&s=19

very strange behaviour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Perhaps try someone who might have some equivalence to the reaction to the plight of Nazanin-Ratcliffe who isn't a Tory minister or politician. Then others might be able to appreciate the point you desperately want to prove!

---

To be honest I don't even know what I'm being asked now. To find a white person who's been criticised? Easy. To find a non-white person that has been praised? Easy. The reality is some people criticised her in the press release for not thanking those who had just negotiated her release. They are entitled to think that, there's no evidence it's connected to her skin colour or heritage whatever in a widespread way and that's that.

We are supposed to be trying to move to a society where race doesn't matter. Forcing it to be an issue when it probably isn't does the opposite of trying to achieve that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamesWales

There is no need for abuse but I dont think she came across well tbh. In such s circumstance you would expect everyone to come away entirely sympathetically. That wasn't the case here.

I can well believe she feels that other foreign secretaries could have got her out sooner (no doubt there are reasons good or otherwise) but it strikes me that the current one and her staff have achieved it and that deserves credit.

As an aside, note how divisive Twitter subtly works; criticism of her is framed as criticism of someone who 'is a person of colour' etc. I.e a not very subtle dog whistle than anyone criticising her is a racist.

The same rules never apply to Priti Patel et Al of course. That's all legitimate

---

Understand your bemusement. Here is your original post. Insert a different name than Priti Patel who is not a politician and then amplify your point that dog whistling abounds.