Brexit: Now What? Part II

[McHrozni]

Tough topic, for sure. No one, indeed, actually forces anyone to vote in one sense or another. On the other hand, if evacuees from a nearby forest fire are walking through town recounting their experiences, and local politicians have nothing to say ~ regardless of whether the fires are a product of natural forces or human intent, or are likely or highly unlikely to recur ~ then the townsfolk can get the fair sense that there is a high degree of political nonchalance about what could, in theory and practice, prove harmful to the entire town. So, no matter one's views, factual analysis is called for, allowing the dangers to be identified or dismissed, solutions - or inaction - justified, and in general for policy to be guided by factual assessment. That, I think, is a fair expectation of political leadership. So far, only the far Right is filling that vacuum, albeit with their own silly "truths," with the unfortunate consequences for all to see.

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Dismissing the dangers posted by Islamism to human civilization as we know it amounts to politics going AWOL and leaving the door wide open for the far Right who actually addresses the issue. Their solutions are inherently bad and come with a whole range of other horrible baggage, but they're the only ones addressing this issue.

The solution of remaining AWOL on this issue and whining about the far Right getting the vote is, well ... the description would be longer than 100 words, none of them flattering, and probably a violation of Rules 0 and 10.

It's what happened with Brexit, and people still deny this is a valid complaint. Unbelievable.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Most media in my experience tried to dampen the effect of the flow by the way.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/08/us/muslims-in-america-shattering-misperception/
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-...bc-gives-big-brother-a-twist-out-go-evictions
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/war.shtml

And so on and on. Most major media outlets are like that. The real myth is that there is an anti-Muslim propaganda spewed constantly by the media. The truth is diametrically opposite: most major outlets try their best to reduce anti-Islamic opinions whenever possible. Actually I was wrong calling it a myth. It is a bald-faced lie.

McHrozni

That's simply BS. Can I ask if you live in the UK, Europe or elsewhere? Because the above seems to ignore the reality of the media. Speaking as a UK resident you cannot ignore the contribution of the Express the Mail and the Sun to the debate. They simply print lies on an almost daily basis. Not can you ignore the completely disproportionate coverage given to UKIP and Farage across all outlets.

Trying to pretend that somehow the Guardian or CNN balances that is ridiculous. The Guardian has about 10% of the readership of the Mail alone.

So your assertion is wildly misinformed. Anti-Muslim/anti-foreigner sentiment has been stoked up for decades by the media. Exactly the same can be said for anti-EU sentiment culminating in Brexit. Disinformation and lies. The people who vote for these things are woefully misinformed on just about every topic but especially on the EU and immigrants.

And your solution seems to be that we should accept the lies as truth or at least pretend to and do something about it because insisting that they are lies will just make people more determined to believe them.

 

[McHrozni]

That's simply BS. Can I ask if you live in the UK, Europe or elsewhere? Because the above seems to ignore the reality of the media. Speaking as a UK resident you cannot ignore the contribution of the Express the Mail and the Sun to the debate. They simply print lies on an almost daily basis. Not can you ignore the completely disproportionate coverage given to UKIP and Farage across all outlets.

That's three outlets. I believe two of the three I gave you are also British, and paint a starkly different picture. I sincerely doubt three outlets have the power to manufacture anti-Islamic sentiment by themselves.

Add three outlets plus an occasional mass terrorist attacks with over a hundred dead in UK or next door to UK however, and you get yourself a problem, true. Insisting it's a media-manufactured problem is a tad silly however.

Trying to pretend that somehow the Guardian or CNN balances that is ridiculous. The Guardian has about 10% of the readership of the Mail alone.

How about BBC? I heard it's quite popular in UK. It's online market share is about five times that of Mail Online.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...ites-dominate-the-market-in-online-news-views

And your solution seems to be that we should accept the lies as truth or at least pretend to and do something about it because insisting that they are lies will just make people more determined to believe them.

Yup. Do you have a better proposal?

Before you answer, ignoring it brought us to the point where the deplorables became important political actors. It has to be something else, please spell out what would you propose.

Good luck.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Personally I don't think any particular article of clothing should be banned. The burqa ban is probably necessary not because it bans the burqa, but because it will shift some of the deplorable vote from AfD to sane parties in Germany.
It's a little more complex than you can probably comprehend

Oh it's not complex at all. You are in favour of removing rights from innocent people in order to pander to bigots for no reason than it will make the bigots a bit happier. Let's just be clear on that rather than beat around the bush and pretend that you are adopting some kind of sophisticated position or moral high ground here.

 

[Craig B]

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. Dismissing the dangers posted by Islamism to human civilization as we know it amounts to politics going AWOL and leaving the door wide open for the far Right who actually addresses the issue. Their solutions are inherently bad and come with a whole range of other horrible baggage, but they're the only ones addressing this issue.

The solution of remaining AWOL on this issue and whining about the far Right getting the vote is, well ... the description would be longer than 100 words, none of them flattering, and probably a violation of Rules 0 and 10.

It's what happened with Brexit, and people still deny this is a valid complaint. Unbelievable.

Mchrozni

Go ahead and say what you mean, and if you do it without resorting to insults or abuse you will be within the rules. Come on now, be brave. Don't do AWOL on the issues.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's three outlets. I believe two of the three I gave you are also British, and paint a starkly different picture. I sincerely doubt three outlets have the power to manufacture anti-Islamic sentiment by themselves.

Add three outlets plus an occasional mass terrorist attacks with over a hundred dead in UK or next door to UK however, and you get yourself a problem, true. Insisting it's a media-manufactured problem is a tad silly however.

I'll ask the question you avoided again. Do you live in the UK or Europe or elsewhere? The above statement to me could only be made by someone who doesn't live in the UK and is remote from the reality.

How about BBC? I heard it's quite popular in UK. It's online market share is about five times that of Mail Online.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...ites-dominate-the-market-in-online-news-views

The BBC publishes all kinds of stories on both sides of the argument. It is certainly not some kind of pro-Muslim voice nor is it systematically trying to paint Muslims in a good light or to minimise anti-Muslim sentiment as you suggested. Again, you come across as someone who isn't on the ground.

Yup. Do you have a better proposal?

Than basing policy on lies to pander to bigots? Repeatedly poking myself in the eye with a stick? Making decisions based on horoscopes? Tea leaves? I mean if we are reduced to basing decisions on known lies to pander to bigots then we're through the looking glass of any kind of rationality or logic. But hell at least you admit that's what you are in favour of. Post-truth indeed.

Before you answer, ignoring it brought us to the point where the deplorables became important political actors. It has to be something else, please spell out what would you propose.

Except it hasn't been ignored. It's been stoked up by the media and pandered to by politicians of all shades of tie trying to win votes. And it's only made it worse. Because if you encourage and normalise deplorable bigotry it doesn't make it go away. It strengthens it. Perhaps the Second World War could have been avoided if we'd been happy to let Hitler just gas a few Jews in your opinion? Or maybe just the gays?

 

[ceptimus]

This chart is from the Huffington Post website:

As far as I know, it's factual.

It's interesting that Muslims form such a disproportionately large part of the prison population (13% of prisoners from only 4.8% of the general population). Assuming it's true, I don't know how much is due to Muslims being more likely to be criminal, and how much is due to simple demographics or less fair treatment by the police and legal system.

I agree with McHorzni that the policies of the liberal mainstream parties and the more liberal media (like the BBC) in not being prepared to criticize Muslims who deserve criticism is now playing into the hands of the far right. Some of the refusal to criticise Muslims is down to not wanting to offend them for fear of appearing racist, and some of the refusal to criticise is down to real fear of reprisals.

The tactic of shouting 'racist' at anyone who dares oppose immigration is also becoming counterproductive. People who are not racists are sick of this tactic being used to shut down rational discussion. If we're not careful then it will soon become socially acceptable for these people to reply, 'Well, I suppose by YOUR definition, I am a racist - so what?' and from there it's a short step for people and parties to wear their racism as a badge of pride.

 

[McHrozni]

Oh it's not complex at all. You are in favour of removing rights from innocent people ...

Nonsense. You haven't even red my proposal, have you? I linked it to you a few posts back, please go there and read it. After that I expect you to start explaining to me how my actual proposals are bad, if you can manage. Good luck with that.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I'll ask the question you avoided again.

I didn't avoid it, I ignored it. I don't live in UK if that means so much to you.

The BBC publishes all kinds of stories on both sides of the argument. It is certainly not some kind of pro-Muslim voice nor is it systematically trying to paint Muslims in a good light or to minimise anti-Muslim sentiment as you suggested.

You claimed there is some big media conspiracy to paint Muslims in a bad light. Your evidence is claiming three mediocre media outlets doing so, without any factual study behind it. The burden of evidence is on you.

Now that we've cleared that up, you just admitted the leading medium in UK and one of the most respected media houses worldwide does not, in fact, do as you claim "the media" is doing. I say this is sufficient evidence your claim is BS until you prove it otherwise.

Than basing policy on lies to pander to bigots? Repeatedly poking myself in the eye with a stick? Making decisions based on horoscopes? Tea leaves? I mean if we are reduced to basing decisions on known lies to pander to bigots then we're through the looking glass of any kind of rationality or logic. But hell at least you admit that's what you are in favour of. Post-truth indeed.

I'll interpret that as a "No, I do not". It speaks volumes about you that you're able to criticize a policy without ever considering it's merits, but are completely unable to come up with anything better. I believe there is a quote attributed to Einstein about people like you.

Perhaps the Second World War could have been avoided if we'd been happy to let Hitler just gas a few Jews in your opinion? Or maybe just the gays?

Perhaps you should read what I write on occasion and not simply pander nonsense continuously.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11617723&postcount=2245

Dig through that, then come up with something meaningful. Or not, your choice.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

That's three outlets. I believe two of the three I gave you are also British, and paint a starkly different picture. I sincerely doubt three outlets have the power to manufacture anti-Islamic sentiment by themselves.

The Sun and the Mail by themselves shift as many copies a day as all the other national papers combined.

The Express comes in at number 5, beaten only by the Mirror and the Telegraph, I believe. (Quick check, and it's dropped just behind the Star for this year).

And before you say "what about the Metro and Standard", both of those are regional, and both are owned by the Daily Mail Group.

 

[The Don]

It's interesting that Muslims form such a disproportionately large part of the prison population (13% of prisoners from only 4.8% of the general population). Assuming it's true, I don't know how much is due to Muslims being more likely to be criminal, and how much is due to simple demographics or less fair treatment by the police and legal system.

Apparently, it's complicated.....

n 2010, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, published a report on Muslims in jail, in which she linked the growth in numbers to the age and socio-economic profiles of the Muslim population in general.

"Both are powerful predictors of involvement in the criminal justice system," she wrote, "and Muslims in Britain have a notably younger age profile than non-Muslims and are more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups."

and...

Amal Imad, a researcher for the charity Muslim Aid, agrees with Dame Anne's findings from five years ago that poverty - in particular not having enough money to feed a family - is a key factor driving crime, and therefore imprisonment, among Muslims.

"The underlying issue is economic crisis," she says.

and....

In a major report last year, Lady Lola Young of Hornsey reached similar conclusions about the reasons for the disproportionate representation of Muslim men at all stages of the criminal justice system.

"They are more likely to be stopped and searched, more likely to plead not guilty and more likely to be tried.

"These disparities... are often part of a complex mix of educational, employment, health and social inequalities that have characterised many of their lives," says Lady Young.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31794599

the good news is that re-offending rates are lower among Muslims

the reoffending rates of Muslim prisoners are already substantially lower than others, at about 36% compared with 45% .

 

[McHrozni]

As far as I know, it's factual.

It's interesting that Muslims form such a disproportionately large part of the prison population (13% of prisoners from only 4.8% of the general population). Assuming it's true, I don't know how much is due to Muslims being more likely to be criminal, and how much is due to simple demographics or less fair treatment by the police and legal system.

There are other issues at play too - the infographic shows they're poorer and less qualified than average, 26% have no qualifications at all (and it was 39% recently). Adjust for that and they're certainly far closer to average.

As to why they are less educated than average is anyones' guess. Having to pray five times a day isn't usually conductive to education, but I can't say if the practice of their faith is significant in this regard. It could be, but we don't know enough to say.

Also, it's McHrozni and not McHorzni

McHrozni
(and not McHorzni )

 

[Craig B]

... wear their racism as a badge of pride.

So tell me who's responsible for the KKK wearng pointy hats with pride? Goddam Dems who went soft on blacks decades ago.

 

[McHrozni]

The Sun and the Mail by themselves shift as many copies a day as all the other national papers combined.

Yeah, and their circulation halved in the time period they allegedly "manufactured anti-Muslim dissident".

The combined circulation all these newspapers is about the traffic of BBC.com, if not dwarfed by it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/worldnews/bbc-world-news-web-figures.html

Add in the TV and radio and you can quickly see you're essentially claiming a few mediocre outlets did it all by themselves during the time their readership plummeted.

Quite a feat, that.

McHrozni

 

[Castro]

There is truth to this. The problems we face are many. Islam is not the only factor, even if it figures prominently. I do think it has a causal relationship in the rise of demagogues. Where I diverge is in the prescriptions, but not the description, broadly speaking. I am no more interested in seeing the postulates of rabid white "Christian" nationalists prosper than I am in seeing the spread of the doctrinal antithesis of modernity and tolerance of diversity.

My question to you, returning to Brexit, is if the prevalence of the factors you cite tracks with the regions voting most for Leave. Is, say, northeast England poverty stricken, and were there many promises made to that region that went unmet? If we take the example of the US, it has already been shown that Trump voters earn, on average, more than Clinton's, belying the argument that a poor economy or disadvantage was the driving issue.

I was talking about what is going on with the FN in France (imo). Actually there could be some similarities with what happened in the UK with Brexit or the US with Trump but I have not enough informations to answer that question, sorry.

 

[The Don]

Add in the TV and radio and you can quickly see you're essentially claiming a few mediocre outlets did it all by themselves during the time their readership plummeted.

Quite a feat, that.

McHrozni

I think you're unaware of the sway that those newspapers have on national opinion. The UK is rare in that we still have high levels of newspaper readership, a predominantly national daily press and very clearly politically aligned newspapers.

The Sun, Mail and Express still have an enormous readership among "middle-England" in particular and are very influential.

Add in sites like MailOnline and the influence increases.

Of course their anti-immigration, anti-welfare state, right wing message is pushing at an open door for much of their readership.

 

[McHrozni]

I was talking about what is going on with the FN in France (imo). Actually there could be some similarities with what happened in the UK with Brexit or the US with Trump but I have not enough informations to answer that question, sorry.

Brexit and Trump show the hidden deplorable vote can sway the elections by about the margin of error of polls. Fillon leads LePen in polls by about 2:1 (~70-30), barring major new developments of truly phenomenal scale, the deplorable vote isn't nearly enough for FN to pull this off.

The sad thing is that new developments of truly phenomenal scale are not impossible.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nonsense. You haven't even red my proposal, have you? I linked it to you a few posts back, please go there and read it. After that I expect you to start explaining to me how my actual proposals are bad, if you can manage. Good luck with that.

McHrozni

I read the post I quoted and responded to its content. Perhaps YOU should read what you actually write as well?

 

[Darat]

Maybe I'm projecting, but I think it might raise some eyebrows in Wales and Scotland to see the government's view of things so clearly laid out in print. My impression is that the general public's view of the WA and/or SP has been that they have a certain, if limited, degree of independence from Westminster.

What's also rather interesting is that the SC isn't entirely persuaded by this line of argument, or so it seems.

Whilst people may not like it holding that view can't be controversial as that has been the case for a few hundred years.

 

[McHrozni]

I think you're unaware of the sway that those newspapers have on national opinion. The UK is rare in that we still have high levels of newspaper readership, a predominantly national daily press and very clearly politically aligned newspapers.

The Sun, Mail and Express still have an enormous readership among "middle-England" in particular and are very influential.

Add in sites like MailOnline and the influence increases.

Maybe. That said, they didn't invent anti-Islamic feelings, they stroked them, used them, milked them and groomed them, but manufactured them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

No. The anti-Islamic feelings are a product of Islamic terrorism, Islamic xenophobia, Islamic supremacism and other activities of Muslims too devout for their own good. The said newspapers probably shaped them a little, definitely worsened them to some extent, but manufactured it? Please, you don't have to manufacture feelings against an ideology that has been the leading source of both terrorists and refugees for over two decades straight and is currently running stronger than ever.

Of course their anti-immigration, anti-welfare state, right wing message is pushing at an open door for much of their readership.

Certainly. They're writing about these issues in no small part because their readership wants to read to their issues. It's not some sort of conspiracy to incite people against Muslims. I'm sure BBC and others do write pro-Muslim articles from time to in order to defend them, but no significant outlet is a part of some mysterious nefarious plan to incite ethnic hatred against Muslims, especially not out of nowhere.

McHrozni