Very cool, if true

:-) I'm not at all a political animal, just making a point about reporting (or reading?) bias.

I doubt that your readership contains a high proportion of people who habitually read more right-wing media and so might more easily get on the trail of a counterexample. Someone would have to go deliberately digging... how likely people are to go digging for information that might contradict their own current views and political biases I leave you to ponder - I am sure you have read enough on, and experienced enough of human nature to form a likely opinion... Put it this way - you are one of the most likely people to do so that I know - and you haven't done so. I am another - and *I* haven't done so (but I have no real political axe to grind).

I found the article itself really selective, anecdotal and taking every interviewee's opinion/interpretation as if it were fact. I detected very little by way of actual analysis or critical thought. Naive. Seemed a bit of a case of deciding what you want to find and, golly gosh, finding it. (What's that called when you do it in science? Besides 'A Bad Idea'. Confirmation Bias?). Nor did any of your commenters seem to add any of their own - so I just thought I'd inject a little reminder that critical thinking is really is a good idea...

From:

I do have the odd person who is going to vote Conservative on my journal, although they're a small minority.

Also, some Labour people who don't like Lib Dems, and vice versa. I've already seen plenty of people complaining about local Lib-Dem tactics in the elections, for instance, despite the majority of people intending to vote for them.

From:

oh, you no doubt have a few outliers :-)

my point was that people tend to be rather fond of their own opinions and rarely go out of their way to try to tear them down.

From:

Absolutely!

That's why I keep you lot around. Keeps my feet on the ground :->

From:

but 'us lot' won't challenge you much if our political opinions are of a narrow span...which by your own admission they are...

From:

I already said that I had people that didn't like all three of the major parties. What more do you want?

From:

Would you give, say, a BNP supporter a fair hearing or presume they were a fascist / nazi fuckwit with nothing useful to say?

I am not a BNP supporter but did recently read an interesting book, Mussolini's Intellectuals, which convincingly argued that Fascist ideas were intellectually no worse nor more wrong (if also no better nor more correct) than those of any other political creed of the time.

From:

I've met racist people before who had perfectly good opinions on other matters. I'd probably be more suspicious of things they said than I would otherwise be, but I wouldn't close my mind off.

Because, as you point out, if I'm going to discount the opinions of people who have some opinions I find despicable then I have to discount the opinions of pretty much everyone from over 100 years ago, and most people from 30 years ago.

From:

But this perhaps implies a lack of openness around racism itself: Could someone make an intellectual argument in favour of racism that would convince you? What, for instance, do you think of white and black nationalist / separatist types in the USA, both of whom would be happy with complete segregation from one another. Or would accepting a racist argument only be possible with your counterpart 100 years ago? Again, I must emphasise that this is only a thought experiment type question, not an endorsement of such positions.

From:

The problem with black separatists is that they want to prevent white people from being allowed to buy homes near them (and vice versa). As I'm against people losing their rights because they were born with certain attributes, I don't approve. Were we to live on a planet that was largely unsettled then I'd be happy enough for them to bugger off somewhere and hope that nobody followed them, but I wouldn't be happy with them setting up a government that discriminated.

I've never heard a logical backup for racist views - and every attempt I've heard has been easily taken apart. It's notable that racism is distinctly lower in cities and other areas where people encounter different races all the time, because the racism wasn't rational, it was purely an emotive fear of The Other backed up by "common knowledge" that falls apart once they've encountered the people fear/hate.

From:

Racism may be logical and rational for the racist, even if its not logical and rational by another's criteria.

For example, the poor white who feels better about himself by being racist, in that "I may be poor but at least I ain't black" way.

Likewise racism could be economically rational for group A if it gets them a greater share of resources than group B, even if racism as a whole presumably distorts markets. But then there is the free rider problem, that the most rational thing to do in such a situation, as a member of group A, is to seek to benefit from racism without oneself paying the costs of supporting it. Needless to say, however, the average racist probably doesn't base their racism on a cost-benefit analysis of this sort...

With regard to racism falling apart when the racist encounters the other, what about those situations where this encounter intensifies their racism:

"There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanised in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic antisemitism. Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I carefully watched the man stealthily and cautiously but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?" (Hitler)

Again, just asking questions...

From:

For example, the poor white who feels better about himself by being racist, in that "I may be poor but at least I ain't black" way.

That's not logical, that's emotional. There's a big difference.

And that's the first time Hitler encountered people behaving that oddly. If he'd lived constantly next to a variety of people who all acted differently then he wouldn't be undergoing culture shock.

From:

Unfortunately logic and emotion aren't always easy to differentiate and delineate. Can't fear of something, in this case the unknown, also be logical? Perhaps it's illogical to continue to be afraid of the unknown after it becomes known, but is it really known? That is, if I were afraid of black people and then had a positive experience with a black person that 'should' lead to overcoming my fear, is it logical for this loss of fear to apply in cases other than this specific person, or to other black people?

Maybe the issue is that, besides emotion, we also tend to operate more on heuristics than logic: This decent black person, to the white racist, is the exception to the general rule?

From:

Fear of the unknown may well be normal - but that doesn't mean that the basis of the fear is rationality. If they haven't actively done anything to cause the fear then it's understandable, but not rational.

And yes, bigoted people tend to have ingrained ideas which are hard to break down. That doesn't make them ideas ok.

From:

By this logic if I were a black man and a bunch of swastika wearing skinheads were on the path in front of me, I ought not to be afraid (or anticipate trouble) because they haven't done anything yet? (True, they might be SHARP skinheads whose wearing of the swastika is ironic, but I wouldn't place too much faith in that possibility.)

Coincidentally there's a book about 50s US sci-fi films called rational fears:

http://www.amazon.com/Rational-Fears-American-Horror-1950s/dp/0719036240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273141462&sr=8-1

From:

There's a massive difference between people who are displaying their ideology openly and people who happen to be born with a particular colour skin. One is a choice, the other is not. One is a deliberate signifier of intent and belief, and the other is not.

Edited Date: 2010-05-06 10:35 am (UTC)

From:

fair enough - and they may yet join in.

From:

Comments here:
http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/2042804.html?thread=13892788#t13892788
and here:
http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/2042925.html?thread=13890861#t13890861

are a good start.

From:

Also one council's actions are not necessarily party policy. Think about some rather nasty widely-reported incidents/sets of incidents that have occured in other London boroughs and ask yourself if they are indicative of national Labour(or Conservative, or Lib Dem) policy.

From:

This would be fine if Cameron wasn't holding it up as a model council.

From:

Point. But what does *party policy* actually say - as opposed to what the party leader says? Not that I am a Cameron fan... but presumably he isn't publicly espousing leaving pregnant women hiding from violent partners to sleep on park benches etc. And I doubt that such is written in the Tory manifesto anywhere. Maybe :-) Though that gap is sorta mentionedn in the article asthe thought that volunteers will step in. ('women' I suppose the tory mindest would probably run!)

I'd like, I suppose, to see a comparison of actual spending figures in all areas from all councils over the past 5-10 years. As well as what services they got for the money. I'd want to see a factual comparison of all councils actual actions if such a thing could ever possibly be obtained.

From: