Xenophobia and Racism on LF

[Lootman]

WOKE definition: 1. past simple of wake 2. aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/woke
Yeah too much of that.

Unfortunately, the term - which has really respectable roots going back to the 20's (?) has taken up by some political forces (mainly on the right) and turned into a term of abuse or derision. It's been "weaponised" against the cause it was originally used for and this is really regrettable.

The term "woke" may have so changed its meaning to now be an object of derision. But that is at least partly due to its overuse by some people.

The same thing happened to the terms "politically correct" and "social justice warrior". Both started out as noble and worthy attempts at promoting a liberal agenda. But then through precious and inappropriate usage they are now routinely mocked.

[Arborbridge]

The Chinese seem to live here quite harmoniously, and the Russian orthodox, and for that matter the Jewish when they are allowed to quietly get on with their lives. It's a pity that the West Bank settlers don't follow the example of their emigres.
My prejudice, if you prefer that word, is against those who are not prepared to fit in.


V8

This is one of the key sentiments - I feel it too, of course. Britain has been constantly undergoing change for thousands of years, and nothing you or I can say will stop that (especially with us both being 78!). We seem to be saying we believe in freedom, but only on our terms - and I don't think that is really freedom. Freedom means not fitting in, regrettably though that might be. Of course, there are lines which we would like to be drawn, perhaps must be drawn because that is want the majority in this democracy expect.

But change is inevitable in the long run, but as Maynard Keynes said... well you know what he said

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Unfortunately, the term - which has really respectable roots going back to the 20's (?) has taken up by some political forces (mainly on the right) and turned into a term of abuse or derision. It's been "weaponised" against the cause it was originally used for and this is really regrettable.

The term "woke" may have so changed its meaning to now be an object of derision. But that is at least partly due to its overuse by some people.

The same thing happened to the terms "politically correct" and "social justice warrior". Both started out as noble and worthy attempts at promoting a liberal agenda. But then through precious and inappropriate usage they are now routinely mocked.

There's some truth in that, but you know perfectly well, it isn't the whole truth. This re-visiting of the word woke was pushed by the media and right wing. They didn't have to take up the "revisionist" cause and we don't have to go along with that and undermine the word itself. And ironically, its alleged overuse or misuse by some people that you refer to, is at least partly a balloon flown by those very right wing agents provocateur who like making mountain out of mole hills if it makes good news copy. This re-inforcement catches people in a self-fulfilling feeback loop - and in my view you have just ably produced witness to that.

Incidentally, this happens now and again. For example, the word "egregious" use to mean quite the opposite of the way it's used now. A fact I've sometimes banged on about, but I was interested to read it was mentioned in the Times last Saturday.

The question is, can we ever recapture the true meaning of woke, or has the right wing mob taken over our language? I suggest we stop pretending we don't know what it means, and only use it in the correct context, or not at all.

Arb.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Unfortunately, the term - which has really respectable roots going back to the 20's (?) has taken up by some political forces (mainly on the right) and turned into a term of abuse or derision. It's been "weaponised" against the cause it was originally used for and this is really regrettable.

If we are woke, we are aware of and alive to the problems of those in dire straits, those poorer or worse off than ourselves or those suffering prejudice and discrimination. It has no other meaning, yet people have come to think it has urged on by the right wing media and rabble they appeal to.

Arb.

I try and do my bit.

I must have been half way through typing mine and only saw yours afterwards. Well done for that post.

[MuddyBoots]

I've read the thread (as far as it goes just now) but can't see a reference to Islam or Muslims. It looks like a more general thread about immigration, migration and asylum. Can you give an example(s) of what you find xenophobic or racist?

What I want to know is: Who exactly are these "35 million chickens", coming Home to Roost? "Cluck Cluck"

Good question, the topic starter taken2often has only made the 1 post so far and it'll only muddy the waters if I start guessing what 35 million refers to.

'Chickens coming home to roost' is a common enough expression. Like 'you reap what you sow' and 'what goes around comes around' I guess, so perhaps it's aimed at our politicians.

[gpadsa]

If someone buys the FT then reads mainly the sports pages it doesn't mean the paper is focused on sport.

That will be a quick read - no sports page in the FT ;)

gpadsa

[Lootman]

If someone buys the FT then reads mainly the sports pages it doesn't mean the paper is focused on sport.

That will be a quick read - no sports page in the FT

There have been a few FT articles on the business aspects of pro sports however.

I would hate The Guardian more but its football and cricket coverage is actually quite good.

[Steveam]

I’ve stopped contributing to Current Affairs & News. Unsurprisingly there is a strong right wing, capitalist bias but it often/sometimes spills over into greed and self-serving rhetoric. My values differ from the majority on the boards and I got bored with the repetition of right wing mantra. There is certainly a small minority who barely restrain themselves from racism. I think the post that the OP reported is Islamophobic even if it doesn’t mention Islam or Muslims. It’s very clear that the target was/is (militant) Islam and the importation of this and its values. I actually believe we need space to have proper debate on the changes and differences within our society but it’s a very charged subject and not easily addressed here.

I do get some (small) benefit from the other boards so, for the moment, I remain a member.

Best wishes, Steve

[Lootman]

I’ve stopped contributing to Current Affairs & News. Unsurprisingly there is a strong right wing, capitalist bias but it often/sometimes spills over into greed and self-serving rhetoric. My values differ from the majority on the boards and I got bored with the repetition of right wing mantra.

That is an interesting comment for me. My sense is that CAN/PD is surprisingly left-wing considering that this is a site devoted to free-market capitalism and the pursuit of wealth.

In fact I am probably one of the Lemons whom you deem to be right-wing and yet I can count on one hand the other Lemons I routinely agree with here: SalvorHardin, ScrumpyJack, Nimrod, 88V8 and I am already struggling.

The thing that does intrigue me is there are some here who post a lot, often espouse left-of-centre views, and yet offer nothing on the investment side. So why are they here at all? And shouldn't this be a safe space for a little greed and selfishness?

As for immigration I am mostly in favour of it although I think we could and should be more picky.

[XFool]

I’ve stopped contributing to Current Affairs & News. Unsurprisingly there is a strong right wing, capitalist bias but it often/sometimes spills over into greed and self-serving rhetoric. My values differ from the majority on the boards and I got bored with the repetition of right wing mantra.

That is an interesting comment for me. My sense is that CAN/PD is surprisingly left-wing considering that this is a site devoted to free-market capitalism and the pursuit of wealth.

In fact I am probably one of the Lemons whom you deem to be right-wing and yet I can count on one hand the other Lemons I routinely agree with here: SalvorHardin, ScrumpyJack, Nimrod, 88V8 and I am already struggling.

Yes...

But does that tell us (and possibly you?) something about 'them', 'us' or you?

The thing that does intrigue me is there are some here who post a lot, often espouse left-of-centre views, and yet offer nothing on the investment side. So why are they here at all?

Name names!

This is a recurring 'accusation' (insinuation?) on TLF. Seemingly mostly from posters of a definitely non 'Left-Wing' persuasion. Or is that just my imagination?

[SalvorHardin]

I’ve stopped contributing to Current Affairs & News. Unsurprisingly there is a strong right wing, capitalist bias but it often/sometimes spills over into greed and self-serving rhetoric. My values differ from the majority on the boards and I got bored with the repetition of right wing mantra.

That is an interesting comment for me. My sense is that CAN/PD is surprisingly left-wing considering that this is a site devoted to free-market capitalism and the pursuit of wealth.

In fact I am probably one of the Lemons whom you deem to be right-wing and yet I can count on one hand the other Lemons I routinely agree with here: SalvorHardin, ScrumpyJack, Nimrod, 88V8 and I am already struggling.

The thing that does intrigue me is there are some here who post a lot, often espouse left-of-centre views, and yet offer nothing on the investment side. So why are they here at all? And shouldn't this be a safe space for a little greed and selfishness?

ISTR that it was similar on TMF. A surprisingly large number of posters, who would call themselves left wing, getting upset at posts about making money. Some of the moderators had similar views.

Weirdly many seemed to be surprised that there were some wealthy people on a website which was supposed to be about investment with a bias towards shares. IMHO that's like getting annoyed that a lot of people talk about Ford Capris on a website that's dedicated to Ford Capris.

I remember one of these types at a Fool Social in 2007 getting very upset when he asked me how much I had made on Soco International and I told him. I got a brief and economically illiterate Dave Spart socialist rant in return. As Hayek said: "If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists"

Mentioning Soco to some was like a red rag to a bull. I had one of these kick off on TLF a couple of weeks ago.

I assume that these types hang around because slagging off the wealthy makes them feel good. Although envy is the worst of the seven deadly sins because it's the only one that really isn't fun to do..

[XFool]

:roll:
ISTR that it was similar on TMF. A surprisingly large number of posters, who would call themselves left wing, getting upset at posts about making money. Some of the moderators had similar views.

Weirdly many seemed to be surprised that there were some wealthy people on a website which was supposed to be about investment with a bias towards shares. IMHO that's like getting annoyed that a lot of people talk about Ford Capris on a website that's dedicated to Ford Capris.

I remember one of these types at a Fool Social in 2007 getting very upset when he asked me how much I had made on Soco International and I told him. I got a brief and economically illiterate Dave Spart socialist rant in return. As Hayek said: "If socialists understood economics they wouldn't be socialists"

Mentioning Soco to some was like a red rag to a bull. I had one of these kick off on TLF a couple of weeks ago.

So you keep telling us.

I assume that these types hang around because slagging off the wealthy makes them feel good. Although envy is the worst of the seven deadly sins because it's the only one that really isn't fun to do..

I guess you aren't going to "Name names!" either?

Where ARE all these posters doing all these evil deeds? (Or are they imaginary?)

OTOH, insinuation seems a favourite sport of some on TLF...

[Clariman]

The thread linked below is Islamophobic. If the same post was made about any other religion or group it would be deleted. Its pure race/Islam baiting, similar to the anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany. It is one of many Xenophobic and racist posts on the LF which have appeared in the last few months.

I reported the first post in the thread, but my report was closed with no explanation. The LF is simply becoming a unmoderated home for extremist right wing misinformation and cranks, with the occasional investment topic. Presumably this post will be deleted and I'll be banned, but I'm past caring.

viewtopic.php?f=85&t=42612

Firstly, as one of the Admins here, I can say that all Admins and the site's owners despise racism. The site rules are also clear on this. One of Moderators made the point below ....

You reported taken2often's first post claiming it was Islamophobic. It isn't. It doesn't mention Islam, in fact it doesn't mention any religion. I closed your report with no action because its claim was wrong. C.

He is correct that the post does not mention any specific group, which is why he left the post in place. If a specific group had been mentioned, the post and topic would have been removed. The poster is sailing close to the wind here. One could certainly make a case for it to be left or for it to be removed. Feel free to report anything else you see as being racist.

Clariman

[terminal7]

The world according to SH:

I should add that most of my knowledge of the French attitude towards Britain, especially the difference between the people and the establishment, comes from my late father (who was fluent in French and German) and his many French friends (plus a couple of visits to France on rugby tours in the 1980s).

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=99&t=35277&hilit=father&start=60

T7 (excommunicated)

[RockRabbit]

The thread linked below is Islamophobic. If the same post was made about any other religion or group it would be deleted. Its pure race/Islam baiting, similar to the anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany. It is one of many Xenophobic and racist posts on the LF which have appeared in the last few months.

I reported the first post in the thread, but my report was closed with no explanation. The LF is simply becoming a unmoderated home for extremist right wing misinformation and cranks, with the occasional investment topic. Presumably this post will be deleted and I'll be banned, but I'm past caring.

viewtopic.php?f=85&t=42612

Firstly, as one of the Admins here, I can say that all Admins and the site's owners despise racism. The site rules are also clear on this. One of Moderators made the point below ....

You reported taken2often's first post claiming it was Islamophobic. It isn't. It doesn't mention Islam, in fact it doesn't mention any religion. I closed your report with no action because its claim was wrong. C.

He is correct that the post does not mention any specific group, which is why he left the post in place. If a specific group had been mentioned, the post and topic would have been removed. The poster is sailing close to the wind here. One could certainly make a case for it to be left or for it to be removed. Feel free to report anything else you see as being racist.

Clariman

Thank you for your reply Clariman. However I do not agree that the thread I refer to complies with LF rules, one of which reads as follows:

"Any derogatory remarks regarding any groups, whether majority or minority, will be removed"

The thread may not use the words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'immigrant' etc but it is clearly alluding to those groups by reference to 'Enoch', 'the hell they imported' and the recent threats to MPs (which were widely reported as being from Muslim extremists). The thread is also clearly xenophobic. Furthermore, if you can simply circumvent LF guidelines by not using specific terms but by simply alluding to races/religions etc, then the LF rules are worthless. It simply encourages and enables the technique used in antisemitism over the centuries, whereby Jews were denigrated be reference to their appearance (eg facial features) or profession (eg banking) rather than by specifically stating their religion.

[Lanark]

WOKE definition: 1. past simple of wake 2. aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... glish/woke
Yeah too much of that.

Unfortunately, the term - which has really respectable roots going back to the 20's (?) has taken up by some political forces (mainly on the right) and turned into a term of abuse or derision. It's been "weaponised" against the cause it was originally used for and this is really regrettable.

If we are woke, we are aware of and alive to the problems of those in dire straits, those poorer or worse off than ourselves or those suffering prejudice and discrimination. It has no other meaning, yet people have come to think it has urged on by the right wing media and rabble they appeal to.

Arb.

The term "woke" is thrown around as a term of general abuse with no real meaning by the hard right wing, precisely because they want to claim the word.

Words have power, they hate the idea that the left wing might actually promote the benefits of being aware of social injustice and inequality.
Right wingers tend to be White, Older and Male, people who benefit (or think they benefit) from inequality, and they aren't giving it up without a fight.

NPR pin the start of the current popularity of the word with this song: Erykah Badu - Master Teacher, 2014
https://youtu.be/lJZq9rMzO2c?si=_sxhovtjWR4OSYPk&t=49

I always find it kind of funny, like what you'd rather be asleep then?

[88V8]

.... the post does not mention any specific group, which is why he left the post in place.

Thank you for your reply Clariman. However I do not agree that the thread I refer to complies with LF rules, one of which reads as follows:

"Any derogatory remarks regarding any groups, whether majority or minority, will be removed"

The thread may not use the words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'immigrant' etc but it is clearly alluding to those groups by reference to 'Enoch', 'the hell they imported' and the recent threats to MPs (which were widely reported as being from Muslim extremists). The thread is also clearly xenophobic. Furthermore, if you can simply circumvent LF guidelines by not using specific terms but by simply alluding to races/religions etc, then the LF rules are worthless.

There are no rules against being xenophobic, nor should there be.
Hell is other people, and we all have our definition of 'other'.

As regards specific groups, there are times when specific groups are clearly causing a problem and one should be free to discuss and criticise as appropriate, otherwise that group gets a free pass.
Otoh, if one were name-calling a group just because, that would be another matter.

One does wonder whether the indignant posters would have been equally indignant had the OP been critical of Christians, say, or the Conservative party. But one can only wonder.

V8

[csearle]

The thread may not use the words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'immigrant' etc but it is clearly alluding to those groups by reference to 'Enoch', 'the hell they imported' and the recent threats to MPs (which were widely reported as being from Muslim extremists). The thread is also clearly xenophobic.

I reported the first post in the thread, but my report was closed with no explanation.

When you reported taken2often's post at 2231 on Thursday evening there was no thread, there was just the one post, which had been made 45 minutes earlier. Your claim that that post is Islamaphobic is plainly incorrect. All further posts came after your report so implying now that your report had anything to do with them is IMO disingenuous. C.

[Lootman]

The term "woke" is thrown around as a term of general abuse with no real meaning by the hard right wing, precisely because they want to claim the word.

Words have power, they hate the idea that the left wing might actually promote the benefits of being aware of social injustice and inequality.
Right wingers tend to be White, Older and Male, people who benefit (or think they benefit) from inequality, and they aren't giving it up without a fight.

But don't those comments of yours break the rule that Clariman just outlined?

the post does not mention any specific group, which is why he left the post in place. If a specific group had been mentioned, the post and topic would have been removed.

You have just identified a "specific group" (old white male right-wingers) and then maligned them, in much the same way as the original allegation attacked Muslims. And in that latter case the group was not specifically identified whereas you did identify the specific group that you personally do not like.

And therein lies the problem. Does TLF ban all such generalisations or none of them? Or does it depend on which group it is? So that it is OK to attack old, white males but not young black females?

[XFool]

The term "woke" is thrown around as a term of general abuse with no real meaning by the hard right wing, precisely because they want to claim the word.

Words have power, they hate the idea that the left wing might actually promote the benefits of being aware of social injustice and inequality.
Right wingers tend to be White, Older and Male, people who benefit (or think they benefit) from inequality, and they aren't giving it up without a fight.

But don't those comments of yours break the rule that Clariman just outlined?

the post does not mention any specific group, which is why he left the post in place. If a specific group had been mentioned, the post and topic would have been removed.

You have just identified a "specific group" (old white male right-wingers) and then maligned them, in much the same way as the original allegation attacked Muslims. And in that latter case the group was not specifically identified whereas you did identify the specific group that you personally do not like.

And therein lies the problem. Does TLF ban all such generalisations or none of them? Or does it depend on which group it is? So that it is OK to attack old, white males but not young black females?

It does seem, on TLF, being explicit is a "No Go", but insinuation is permitted.


PS. Thinks: It's all a bit like "lie" vs "wrong"...