Mr. Ace, I wasn't referring specifically to Mr. T's statements, whatever they were, just that people engaging in and supporting identity politics cannot reasonably be surprised when some white people then decide to do the same.
I know it’s not a popular view among the audience here, but the best way of avoiding the Steve Bannons and Nigel Farages gaining a hold on British politics is for everyone else to come together to implement the Brexit vote. By all means argue for re-admission to the EU in future, but the will of the people being seen to be ignored is a very dangerous thing if it is allowed to happen.
The best way to avoid such racist and sexist views becoming mainstream is to challenge them, and ideally not publish the more extreme stuff. Too many here tolerate SeanT as some sort of site yurodivy.
I find the vast majority of SeanT’s posts to be provocative and thought provoking contributions to the site. Yes, he can sometimes overstep the mark, particularly when he’s been drinking, but which of us can’t?
y...
His 'central point' - which was quite well buried under a deal of tendentious guff - was about the growth of white identity politics in the US. As I pointed out last night in response, white identity has been a central element of US politics since there was a United States.
The idea that identity politics is A ) a new thing B ) an invention of the left is one of the most tedious arguments of modern times.
What people are actually objecting too is the historically marginalised identities (blacks, gays etc) organising and fighting back.
Yesterday's Times had a good example of left wing identity politics.
Sarah Champion, the MP for Rotherham, is facing attempts to deselect her, as well as a vicious campaign of abuse and harassment. She now requires police protection. Her crime? To very publicly denounce members of Rotherham's Pakistani community who rape white girls. For doing so, she's been denounced as a racist. Even if one accepts that a group has been marginalised and discriminated against, there is no justification for giving a pass to members of that group who behave disgracefully.
So there is a mess looming here, with three possible solutions:
1) Reinstate the cap. Might be unpopular with the Russell Group as they will see their income fall.
2) Abandon any idea of a cap, and charge the market rate for tuition fees. So charge £30,000 a year to do History at the proper university in Oxford where you get a decent degree, and £5,000 for Oxford University itself where you get a rubbish one.* I have a feeling after last year this would be politically about as acceptable as privatising the NHS.
3) Lift the cap for non-Russell group universities, and have a tight cap for Russell Group BUT also say that only Russell Group can teach postgrads and they can recruit as many as they like.
Educationally 3 is the smart one. However, we come back to that snob value. I think it would be unpopular to say that only a few undergraduates could attend Russell Group universities especially as their intake would likely be dominated by the private sector.
That seems a roundabout way of saying the report is on a symptom of our university system being epically screwed. Could get nasty in a few years.
*Before Mortimer takes umbrage, I'm teasing here!
The use of the Russell Group to define what is a good and bad university is a nonsense. There is no oversight of who gets to be Russell Group - Bath is consistently in the top 10 of rankings yet is not Russell Group. The use of unconditional offers is a sign of utter desperation in recruitment. This year sees a much reduced cohort of students (less 18 year olds). There is also a different game, where students are made conventional offers, but given letters of assurance that no matter what grades they get, they will be admitted. This doesn't show as an Unconditional, but the effect is the same. What student wouldn't want to have their place in the bag no matter how poorly they do?
I’m afraid you didn’t. You accused him of being a rabid racist.
I’ve added a lot to the conversation. In case it helps, by drawing attention to the central criticism SeanT was making about the corrosive effect of identity politics in sowing division rather than healing it.
People far too easily pile on the back of it to accuse each other of being racist and applaud anti-racism in turn. You seemed to be unable to perceive the part you yourself played in this and, I’m afraid, got rather hyper emotive about it, which is when your posts are at their worst.
Sorry about the delay in replying, bit I've been out.
I called him a 'rabid racist' because he is, frankly, racist. You just have to read some of the things he writes all too frequently on here. I know you don't like it, but if you don't class what he writes as 'racist', then I'm intrigued what you would class as racist.
'rabid' is probably also valid given his tone, although I'd be more likely to withdraw that than 'racist'.
What part do you think I played in this? I pointed out how he was wrong, and how he was blind to the history of this country. I haven't got 'hyper-emotive' about it.
To be clear: racism exists. Racists also exist, and should be called out as such. You evidently don't think the many stupid things SeanT writes on here are racist, which rather amuses me. Now, he might be trying to be controversial, but that is a card that only be played so many times before it appears there is, in fact, racist arguments at their heart.
I also think his (and your) criticism of identity politics is poor. What is more, it is easy to make such criticism without descending into the gutter and saying the stuff he said. Since he is a professional wordsmith, it's obvious he knows exactly what he's doing.
He also probably quite enjoys being talked about like this.
Comments
NEW THREAD
The use of unconditional offers is a sign of utter desperation in recruitment. This year sees a much reduced cohort of students (less 18 year olds). There is also a different game, where students are made conventional offers, but given letters of assurance that no matter what grades they get, they will be admitted. This doesn't show as an Unconditional, but the effect is the same. What student wouldn't want to have their place in the bag no matter how poorly they do?
Sorry about the delay in replying, bit I've been out.
I called him a 'rabid racist' because he is, frankly, racist. You just have to read some of the things he writes all too frequently on here. I know you don't like it, but if you don't class what he writes as 'racist', then I'm intrigued what you would class as racist.
'rabid' is probably also valid given his tone, although I'd be more likely to withdraw that than 'racist'.
What part do you think I played in this? I pointed out how he was wrong, and how he was blind to the history of this country. I haven't got 'hyper-emotive' about it.
To be clear: racism exists. Racists also exist, and should be called out as such. You evidently don't think the many stupid things SeanT writes on here are racist, which rather amuses me. Now, he might be trying to be controversial, but that is a card that only be played so many times before it appears there is, in fact, racist arguments at their heart.
I also think his (and your) criticism of identity politics is poor. What is more, it is easy to make such criticism without descending into the gutter and saying the stuff he said. Since he is a professional wordsmith, it's obvious he knows exactly what he's doing.
He also probably quite enjoys being talked about like this.
Not to what effect a Corbyn government might have on the economy in the future.