Read on Twitter
A short thread on the degraded state of political discussion.
Today an account calling itself “Right-Wing Hate Exposed” ( @GuidoFawkesHate) attacked me out of nowhere.
The accusations were based entirely on prejudice, and when the claims were refuted the tweets were deleted.
Today an account calling itself “Right-Wing Hate Exposed” ( @GuidoFawkesHate) attacked me out of nowhere.
The accusations were based entirely on prejudice, and when the claims were refuted the tweets were deleted.
Given their sheer certainty, you’d assume that @GuidoFawkesHate had done some basic research.
Not only am I not right-wing (nothing wrong with that, I’m just not) I’ve explicitly criticised the government over Windrush on national TV. Here’s an example:
Not only am I not right-wing (nothing wrong with that, I’m just not) I’ve explicitly criticised the government over Windrush on national TV. Here’s an example:
Not only that, I tweeted this clip out on 20/06/20, so a quick search would have found it.
They also claim that my “entire shtick” is to “pretend structural racism doesn’t exist”. On the contrary, I think Windrush is an example where the term could apply, as I’ve said before...
They also claim that my “entire shtick” is to “pretend structural racism doesn’t exist”. On the contrary, I think Windrush is an example where the term could apply, as I’ve said before...
My point has always been that any claim of systemic or structural racism requires more than an assertion. It requires evidence-based discussion.
I’ve made the point explicitly in this article, which also clarifies my views on BLM. https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/12/we-need-to-talk-about-black-lives-matterm/
I’ve made the point explicitly in this article, which also clarifies my views on BLM. https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/12/we-need-to-talk-about-black-lives-matterm/
All that @GuidoFawkesHate had to do was read my articles and develop a secure understanding of my position.
They would then be able to engage in a discussion about points of disagreement.
Instead, they decided on my opinions in advance and attacked their imagined version of me.
They would then be able to engage in a discussion about points of disagreement.
Instead, they decided on my opinions in advance and attacked their imagined version of me.
The reason I’m writing this thread is not solely to counter @GuidoFawkesHate for their inaccuracies, but because this approach to political discourse is SO common.
Too often people are mischaracterising their opponents, creating straw men they can knock over with ease.
Too often people are mischaracterising their opponents, creating straw men they can knock over with ease.
It takes effort to engage with political opponents in good faith. It means you have to listen, consider their views, and be prepared to change your mind.
It’s much easier to simply demonise people, accuse them of “hate” or being a “Nazi” or whatever.
It’s much easier to simply demonise people, accuse them of “hate” or being a “Nazi” or whatever.
Those who just throw insults have disqualified themselves from serious debate & discussion. Theirs is an infantile approach to politics. They are mired in prejudice and cannot conceive that they could be wrong.
This is why @GuidoFawkesHate is unlikely to acknowledge their error.
This is why @GuidoFawkesHate is unlikely to acknowledge their error.
In short, I’m saying that @GuidoFawkesHate shows us exactly what *not* to do when it comes to political argument.
Instead, listen to what people actually say (rather than fighting imaginary enemies) and be open to the possibility that those who disagree with us may have a point.
Instead, listen to what people actually say (rather than fighting imaginary enemies) and be open to the possibility that those who disagree with us may have a point.
