Yeah of course, shades of grey. Nobody is suggesting that everybody who comes here is going to be a doctor or a surgeon, and nobody is saying you're a racist if you don't agree with that. It's just the lack of wider debate about the bigger picture when it comes to immigration. For the most part, this country has benefited from immigration, and most developed countries in the world are now a melting pot of multi culturalism That doesn't negate the issues with immigration, and nobody has really dealt with the problems properly. But currently the debate doesn't reflect the reality of immigration, and like you say, it's just polarised. Either shut our borders or let them all in. And most people don't take either stance with that.
As usual the elite rob the country and use their lapdogs to blame minorites. As it's always been. Everywhere.
Infact I'd actually argue the opposite. There is no where near enough sensible discussion about the negative impacts it brings as people who have concerns are shouted down as racist. It's a huge part of why we are where are we. People with genuine concerns get labelled as thick racists and therefore end up getting pushed towards more extreme views.
The whole debate seems to be polarised and distilled down into you're either a racist, or you want an open border policy. In reality, there are probably very few who share either view and most of us reside somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately our Politics and Media don't seem to be able to talk about the nuances of this debate either, so most people simply don't have room to express their views and the whole arena seems to be taken up with extremes.
I think that is the problem, there's an opinion who take one stance, and a large section who take the other. And our media outlets report on those two, never the detail in between. OK, the Tory Rwanda plan could be seen as ludicrous, because it was never fully explained. Then labour get in, cancel it, and haven't told us what their alternative is. And our main media outlets just sensationalise either side, as click bait by TV. So you've got your Sun reader, and you've got your Guardian reader. Prime example; Dougie posts a (very) clumsy meme, and is immediately branded a racist. That's where we, as a country at large, are. You're either far right or far left, and you're a **** by default either way, regardless. I don't see why I should be scared of my shadow for offering an opinion somewhere in between, without being branded as something.
Not sure it's just the politics and media mate. You see it happening on this very forum. Remember Brexit when everybody was a thick racist for example?
It happens here too. But what I'm saying is that the things we turn to for our information, the media and politics, seems to lack any nuanced debate, which is probably why is reflected here as well.
Don't disagree. I think social media and their algorithms are the biggest issue though, people just aren't used to coming across different views to their own. Whichever side of the debate they land on.
That seems to be a problem with a ever increasing chasm. The more people engage with one set of views, the more the algorithms feed them more of the same info and they double down on their views.
Yeah well, I never go on there. I'll say something, there's no sign of any riots in South Wales. There's a little anti English narrative kicking about but it's all just jest, in 33 years of having Iived Wales, no one has ever, even once, called me an English ****. (Even though I am one, obvs) And I don't witness racism of any note. One of the many reasons I live there.
The Swansea boys were actually supporting us in the Euros until we ****ed up and then it was England are ****, BUT none of the nastiness you get from the Scottish football fans
I know the BBC isn't perfect. But it's why I tend to gravitate towards them for my info. Because they at least try to offer an impartial view (I know some might not agree with that) But when you look at the fact that some people only get their news from Twitter or Social media that feeds them more and more of the bias they want to hear, then you can see why people take extreme views without ever really hearing the opposing argument.
I also default to the BBC tbh. I can't forget how they were during Covid though. Complete brainwashing. Or attempts at. And they kind of do with this, if you haven't got the brain to think for yourself.
I'll never forget towards the end of 2021 when the Beeb ran a huge headline of "OMICRON VARIANT COULD BE MORE DANGEROUS" as their main story. And then mentioned in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph that the study was based on a very small sample and many scientists around the world disputed the results. The Sun would have been proud of that.
I think the problem with Covid was again, it was just two extremes. Either get jabbed, wear a mask and obey the rules or you'll kill your granny or It's all a hoax and the jabs are Bill Gates trying to poison everybody. When in reality it was far more nuanced than that and as time went on, more and more people began to question it all. I include myself in that, because initially I watched the news, and went along with what was being asked, believing it was protecting other people. It was only when, randomly a MTB you tube guy I was following in the US became really ill after having the jabs, that I started to question the whole 'safe and effective' mantra that the BBC and most media outlets were pushing. In the end, the whole wear a mask to a restaurant, but take it off at the table, but put it on to go to the toilet stuff, just showed what nonsense it had become.
I agree, other than the meme bit that I think was deserved as posting that kind of thing drives the far right thinking. Having a sensible debate about any subject makes complete sense but there are now just two sides and each side defends their stance with no willingness to learn or concede.
But wasn't this always the case? Way back when, the only opinions you'd ever encounter were from people with a very similar socioeconomic background to yourself (I.e. your local neighbourhood and school), and later in life through a very narrow network of colleagues at work and whichever news channel or newspaper you happened to prefer. Society in general was far more bigoted and xenophobic pre the internet than it is now. The idea of church or state supported racism in most western countries is farcical today, yet barely 100 years ago it was completely normal and accepted. Largely because no one was equipped to argue otherwise. I agree algorithms and echo chambers are a huge issue, but as a parent of teenagers watching them grappling with the world as the they grow up, I think they are far more 'worldly' than I was at their age (plus I was a massive pillock which didn't help). They know exponentially more about the world and what goes on in it than I ever did. And I think that's the crux of the matter. Social media and smart phones in general totally overload us with a colossal amount of information. I read a study recently that argues that in the space of one week just scrolling Twitter or similar, youngsters absorb more information than their great-grandparents encountered across their entire lifetime. If true, that is absolutely mental. Most people, especially young and impressionable ones, just can't cope with that volume of information and the nuance required to navigate it fairly and reasonably. So we default to trying to compartmentalise and simplify it into more manageable boxes. Which is where extremism comes in. It is clumsy, dishonest and not based on any nuance at all, but it works. That's just it. In solving and organising the waves of complicated information endlessly washing over us, it works.
Not sure i fully agree with that. Yes theres far more information on the internet to research. Theres also way more fake information too and a lot of social media interaction is full of bots or misinformation. In terms of what "hooks" the masses, rather than i nice detailed piece, the attention span of people watching "shorts", looking at twitter which has a limited numbers of characters but most importantly, social media "tailors" (more engagement so you are hooked) your feeds to send you what you want to see, so you are just getting reinforced with more and more news of the side you want to see. If you want to see racist news, you are only going to get fed with racist news. If you want to see corbyn is a saviour news, you will only get this. There is no balance unless you deliberately look for it but people are too lazy and won't do it.
