Countering hate.

[rob D2]

Blimey, hasn’t this been locked yet ...

[57xx]

On 17/10/2020 at 14:13, MrWolf said:

The question is, how to counter that?

 

Edjucation. And tolerance, on all sides of the fence.

[MrWolf]

3 hours ago, 57xx said:

 

Edjucation. And tolerance, on all sides of the fence.

 

Indeed. But from what I have seen over the years, here and abroad, that could be an unending task. No matter what your intentions, once you add the human element, ideals become distorted by those with a self serving agenda.

[Gibbo675]

7 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

Indeed. But from what I have seen over the years, here and abroad, that could be an unending task. No matter what your intentions, once you add the human element, ideals become distorted by those with a self serving agenda.

Hi Mr Wolf,

 

Your observation may well be that of the quantum effect of the thought process.

 

Just for the fun of it I dealt a tarot card to see what the energy of the thread is and I turned up the Ace of Cups which signifies a drastic change of feelings. How quantum is that ?

 

I can just imagine the drastic change of feeling of some that shall read this post at the very mention of the tarot. Unfortunately with the title of the thread being "Countering Hate" the usual suspects will have great trouble getting past their hypocrisy should they wish to make remarks.

 

As Carl Jung once remarked:

 

"The masses are always breeding grounds for psychic epidemics."

 

He also said this:

 

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.”

 

Gibbo.

[57xx]

7 hours ago, MrWolf said:

 

Indeed. But from what I have seen over the years, here and abroad, that could be an unending task. No matter what your intentions, once you add the human element, ideals become distorted by those with a self serving agenda.

 

I never said you'd achieve the end goal , but it would go a long way towards it (and IMHO already has in some areas). I think there will always be elements that don't want to listen for whatever reason.

[woodenhead]

22 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

.. false logic. If I were in a Japanese club, I’d expect to see Japanese people; in a model railway club, people modelling railways. Flamboyantly camp people are nothing new in ballroom dancing, after all; nor are people well known to be gay. 

 

The question is, whether Strictly is funded from public funds so that it can act in a deliberately provocative manner, in pursuit of ideological ends. I submit, as Graham Norton actually said (but is being misrepresented, in context) that the purpose of Strictly is to present light entertainment within a closely defined formula (more akin to pantomime, than theatre) - specifically, on the premise of being a competition, with known rules - and on that basis, it is wrong. 

Going back to my point, there is nothing wrong in same sex couples dancing on Strictly, why should it matter.

[jcredfer]

22 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Going back to my point, there is nothing wrong in same sex couples dancing on Strictly, why should it matter.

 

Spot on, I haven't observed much other than a load of media fluff, presumably to inflate the ratings.

 

Julian

 

[rockershovel]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Going back to my point, there is nothing wrong in same sex couples dancing on Strictly, why should it matter.

 

The TL:DR answer would be;

 

- the BBC is a publicly funded body, limited by Charter which specifically requires it to be impartial and precludes it from political activism (and is, as things stand, facing a serious existential challenge to its funding model, using its disregard for that principle as a platform)

- Strictly presents the facade of being a competition run by generally accepted rules, using accredited judges recognised by external organisations. Specifically, this means WDSF, the international governing body (recognised by the IOC and others) whose rules specifically and clearly preclude same-sex couples. 

 

My point would therefore be, that the active promotion of same-sex couples on Strictly both contravenes the BBC’s own Charter, and the integrity of its own judging and scoring system. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by rockershovel

[woodenhead]

Coming back to countering hate, does the matter of same sex couples:

1. Harm me - no
2. Hurt me - no
3. Impact me detrimentally - no

It therefore does not matter if there are same sex couples on a program like Strictly, this is not international sports it is entertainment.

[MrWolf]

Interesting. That comment about Tarot cards rather proves the point in the next post about certain other groups not wanting to listen. Even in the UK I have come across those who would be screaming about witchcraft at the very mention and in other parts of the world they would cheerfully murder you for it.

[fezza]

I think the objection to same sex couples in ballroom dancing competitions is the same as the objection to same sex couples in mixed doubles tennis - it changes the very nature of the activity as men and women have different roles. At least that is the objection of a friend of mine who was an openly gay competitive dancer for about 40 years. 

[woodenhead]

15 minutes ago, fezza said:

I think the objection to same sex couples in ballroom dancing competitions is the same as the objection to same sex couples in mixed doubles tennis - it changes the very nature of the activity as men and women have different roles. At least that is the objection of a friend of mine who was an openly gay competitive dancer for about 40 years. 

And in a professional sporting competition I would agree, but Strictly is entertainment just like Dancing on Ice

[rockershovel]

31 minutes ago, fezza said:

I think the objection to same sex couples in ballroom dancing competitions is the same as the objection to same sex couples in mixed doubles tennis - it changes the very nature of the activity as men and women have different roles. At least that is the objection of a friend of mine who was an openly gay competitive dancer for about 40 years. 

 

Quite so. See my reply above. 

 

I wouldn’t seriously claim that Strictly was anything more, or less than a scripted, manipulated light entertainment show - but nonetheless, it operates under the facade of being a competition, assessed and scored by recognised judges with bona-fide credentials as professional dancers and in some cases, coaches at a high level. 

 

It’s undoubtedly much simpler to chant “haters gonna hate”...

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by rockershovel

[woodenhead]

I think I am going to withdraw from this topic, it started nobly enough but we're now arguing over the rules of Strictly come Dancing (the celeb version) and really this is nothing to with hate or hate speech.

 

I know I am as guilty as others to bring it to this level, so I apologise.

[Gibbo675]

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Going back to my point, there is nothing wrong in same sex couples dancing on Strictly, why should it matter.

Hi Woodenhead,

 

Cheer up lad !

 

Not only has been done before it is very funny as it happens:

 

 

Alternatively, and from a point of view that suggests that culture may be shaped via altering perceptions of its current state and setting it toward a specific direction could be seen as the normalisation of deviance, that is however is a little deep for Steptoe and Son.

 

Gibbo.

[rockershovel]

On the contrary, it has been a very interesting thread. I don’t believe it was intended to be about the politicisation of language and subversion of public debate, though. 

 

I did enjoy the Steptoe episode. The joke about “learning the women’s steps” could be seen a mile off, but it was still funny; the “Hokey Cokey” joke surfaced on Strictly, courtesy of Bill Bailey. I don’t see the connection with “normalisation of deviance”, the basic premise is that Harold (not for the first time) has made promises he can’t deliver on (ballroom dancing) and his father (not for the first time, either) proves to have hidden depths. It isn’t as funny as the “billiard table” episode, which takes the same joke to supreme levels of absurdity but it’s a solid piece of writing and performance. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2020 by rockershovel

[Nick C]

18 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Again, burning tyre logic with a strong salting of simple lack of accuracy. The general spread of literacy, combined with the spread of knowledge of the wider world and the religious revivalism of the late 18th, and early 19th centuries meant that the lower classes were increasingly aware of the slave trade, and regarded it as wrong.

 

The Parliaments of the 1780-1830 period abolished the slave trade in a piecemeal fashion, bearing in mind that the overseas colonies were not a centrally governed Empire at that time and the writ of Parliament only reached so far. 

 

But then the vast majority of the population didn't have the vote until after the first world war, so while the lower classes may have been aware of what was going on, they had no way of influencing it.

[rockershovel]

43 minutes ago, Nick C said:

 

But then the vast majority of the population didn't have the vote until after the first world war, so while the lower classes may have been aware of what was going on, they had no way of influencing it.

 

Not so, regarding the population having no means of voicing opinion. The Chartist Movement of 1838-57 substantially defined Parlimentary democracy as it exists today, and derived from public rejection of the 1832 Reform Act. It was characterised by mass protest gatherings on a scale not seen previously, and the gathering of petitions with signatures in the hundreds of thousands, if not up to a million as sometimes claimed. The Tolpuddle Martyrs, proto-civil rights activists, were all pardoned and returned to England following mass protests, although the extent to which they achieved their stated aims is unclear at best. 

 

The Methodist Revival of the 18th Century was in some respects, overtly populist and political in character and much feared, at times by the ruling elites. Wellington commented adversely on the effects of Methodism on discipline in the Army, and it ultimately formed the basis of the Labour Party and Trades Union Movement. The Peterloo Riots were a noted example of the threat formed by mass assemblies, when sufficient unity could be achieved. The abolition of slavery could not have been carried through without a strong background of popular support and the subsequent Lancashire weavers’ protests (about the processing of slave-grown cotton from the Confederacy) attracted the attention of President Lincoln, thereby exerting pressure on the government in Westminster. 

 

This period marks the emergence of a lesson which even today, the political elite don’t appear to have learned - that from time to time, the population can be provoked beyond its patience by a sufficiently powerful issue. In 1838, it was the 1834 Poor Law Amendment. Parallels can be seen today in such issues as the great NHS protest marches of the late 1980s, the Poll Tax Riots (and attendant mass disobedience and non-payment) which followed and the 2016 Referendum, all of which were prefigured by periods of unrest; in the case of the 2016 Referendum, the 2004 Regional Assemblies votes provided a clear rejection (unusual in British politics) of a de-facto attempt to Balkanise the national integrity of England, leading to Blair’s observation that the English must never be allowed to vote on EU Membership, because they would undoubtedly reject it. 

 

In turn, the mass protest organisers appear not to have learnt some lessons. The ultimate failure of the preceding unrest and the 1984-5 Miners Strike was prefigured by the defeat of striking miners in the General Strike and related disputes. 

 

 

[rockershovel]

It’s also worth bearing in mind, when the cries of “hatred” fill the air, that Britain has never elected a single Fascist or extreme Right MP, even when Fascism was a mainstream political philosophy dominating the European political arena. This isn’t to say that there were never Fascist movements, but they never achieved any significant degree of influence. 

 

This remains true. The BNP, in its various forms, and related organisations like EDL have never achieved any significant traction. There is really no British, or English equivalent of parties like FN, let alone Golden Dawn. The most significant nationalist movement focussed around EU membership. 

 

 

[Torper]

Fascism in its original sense is not of itself evil, although it frequently became so.  Nowadays fascism is nothing more than a pejorative term used by people of one particular political viewpoint as a label for people (usually but not always right wing) with whom they disagree.  A bit like the way that Domald Trump is always referring to Communisits.

 

DT

[fezza]

My older in laws in Italy remember Fascism in the original sense. It was certainly evil. 

 

In Britain we have a much more polite way of hating through the Daily Mail, but it is still deeply unpleasant. Elements of UKIP / Brexit Party also fall into this category, although in fairness the extreme elements are in a small minority, even in those parties. 

 

 

[AY Mod]

As it's steadily moved towards politics I'm talking the opportunity to lock it. It seems nit-picking even extends to combating hate.