Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

[delmbox]

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]

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.

[JamesWales]

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

What a way to spend your Friday evening mate..

[JamesWales]

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]

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.

[JamesWales]

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?

[az city]

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?

[JamesWales]

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

[az city]

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.

[cyril evans awaydays]

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!

[JamesWales]

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!

[JamesWales]

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"

[cyril evans awaydays]

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.

[JamesWales]

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!

[cyril evans awaydays]

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.

[JamesWales]

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.

[cyril evans awaydays]

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!

[Rjk]

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

very strange behaviour

[JamesWales]

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

[cyril evans awaydays]

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.

[Citizen's Nephew]

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

I think his name is Vlad and he's probably holed up on a troll farm somewhere near the Arctic circle but it's more likely to be much less glamorous. Nobody's got this amount of time and energy without the motivation of another log being allowed on the fire and a slice of baked onion.

[delmbox]

What a way to spend your Friday evening mate..

Number of JamesWales posts on this thread this Friday evening since posting this - 10

[JamesWales]

Number of JamesWales posts on this thread this Friday evening since posting this - 10

I have a wonderful vision of Delm Towers tonight.

Mrs box: what do you want to watch tonight babe? Babe? Babe...oh FFS get off your phone.

Mr Box: wait he's up to nine, no ten posts now! And Cyril Evans away days has come on for s sub from AZ city.

Mrs Box: okay, you can stay up til LOM joins in but then we are watching walking dead babe...babe..

[JamesWales]

I think his name is Vlad and he's probably holed up on a troll farm somewhere near the Arctic circle but it's more likely to be much less glamorous. Nobody's got this amount of time and energy without the motivation of another log being allowed on the fire and a slice of baked onion.

Where the **** is less glamorous than being holed up near the Arctic circle in mid march? Come on...the race baiting is one thing but that's just OTT. We've all had a drink, but seriously..

[Citizen's Nephew]

Where the **** is less glamorous than being holed up near the Arctic circle in mid march? Come on...the race baiting is one thing but that's just OTT. We've all had a drink, but seriously..

Za Zdarovje!