To think my Dad has been radicalised?

[Februaryrat]

My Dad was a teacher back in the day. A Guardian-reading, mostly apolitical teacher.

He has a (hate to use the word) redneck friend in the USA whom he Skypes regularly, and whom I believe has radicalised my Dad. Over the last three years, my Dad now believes:

• Climate change is a hoax (obsessive hatred of windfarms)
• Hilary Clinton is a murderer
• Brexit is the way forward because some of "them" (mostly Romanians when pushed) are committing 70% of offences around here (they aren't) and the press isn't allowed to report on nationality of offenders (they are)
• The NHS is being brought to its knees by health toursits
• Trump is a businessman who is likely to give the USA exactly what it needs, and will be re-elected to great acclaim at the next election.
• The Mexican wall is a good idea
• Why don't more Muslims condemn terrorist attacks?

I am a hard-left feminist, who is finding it harder and harder to have conversations with him that don't end in mud-slinging.

His "source" of news is often what I would consider to be conspiracy websites. I am willing to accept sources of news from anything I consider reputable - and would consider any mainstream media including (spit) the Daily Mail, but the websites he comes up with seem to me to be run by nutters spouting nonsense.

As a previous teacher in a subject where critical thinking and reading was key, it astonishes me that he isn't able to see past the bullshit - but perhaps he thinks the same about me in my left-wing bubble.

Anyone else's parents been radicalised? Any hope, or do we just have to stick to conversations about the weather now? Shit, we can't even do that because of climate change.

Beats me Megatherium! Like I say, I'm in agreement.

I think though it was a major part of his campaign, so yes, it influenced how people voted. Did it serve to give the message "you're not welcome" (likewise the travel ban)? I guess so.

I said it was a crude example.
Younger people are more likely to look at the world through rose tinted glasses. They're idealists.
It's an amazing, lovely, innocent way to be and it's a shame we have to lose that way of thinking as we get older.

I think that some of the posters who have given reasons why people might move to the right as we age have raised some interesting points.

I was very left wing, very politically active until I was in my late twenties when it got harder.

I am not saying that that happens to everyone but as I and others have said your politics are directly influenced by your experience - there is no other way.

I remember the shock of my pay packet when as a single person I lost over 35% of my income in tax - and I had worked soooo hard. Suddenly 50% tax didn't seem like such a noble goal!

PS 30 - 35%was the basic rat in the 70s

It was later though that I moved away from some of my ideals although fought harder and believed even more passionately in some of the others.

It is quite common when you get your news from only one source. Not a good idea for anyone.

www.salon.com/2014/02/27/i_lost_my_dad_to_fox_news_how_a_generation_was_captured_by_thrashing_hysteria/

Agreed Pallisers - but while we have a culture that demonises certain news sources and a polarisation of belief - this is difficult.

I tend to read from everywhere because of the job I do.

@Pallisers That article is excellent. I wish I could send it to Dad but I don't want to upset him.

@Rainmaker I found your comment hurtful and upsetting. I may have different views and ways of reaching conclusions than my dad. I may find things he thinks unpalatable. But he is my dad and I love him. I would never cease contact with him over this and he would never do that to me either. I hold for your sake your own family bonds improve so you are not at risk of losing those close to you.

I've not read the whole thread, but from your opening post I wouldn't say that your Dad has been radicalised. It just sounds like he has very different views from you.
I've also found that people's political views can change as they get older.

I find many news sources unreliable. I rarely (never) watch BBC or Sky news these days. I may look at the odd newspaper, but take the majority of what I read with a huge pinch of salt.

I am particularly frustrated with the BBC news website and their Tv news channel now. I find the quality of content disappointing - and I don't find it to be unbiased.
In recent months their online news site appears to be obsessed with Donald Trump. Important UK news appear to be ignored (or barely mentioned) whilst they publish various news articles on him, most of which are uninteresting, irrevelant or from unreliable sources.

Students are more left-wing because they've generally studied history and seen that right-wing divisive politics and otherism generally lead to war, hatred and disaster

What! lol. This can only have been written by a teen. Some of us (and our parents) have lived through history, tumultuous times in this country and elsewhere. Our values and politics are formed on our life experiences, not on books.

Younger people are more likely to look at the world through rose tinted glasses. They're idealists

This is true and how it should be. Each generation ushers in another wave of energy. I was very idealistic in my teens. I still am idealistic but the main difference is I realise that you have to be hard-nosed in order to establish something that is good - in fact, sometimes you have to be Right wing in order to establish a Left wing way of living (hope that makes sense).

For example, poaching in Africa that I have been reading about. In order to protect, sometimes the Rangers have to shoot a poacher.

Pickled What I object to with the BBC and C4, esp. recently, is their unprofessionalism regarding Trump. At every opportunity they smirk and denigrate. What's happened to professional impartiality? You can think what you like about anyone you report on, but when did it become acceptable to blatantly advertise your channel's political stance, as well as your own, in such a bitchy way?

I agree Diana Dors
It does come across as very sneering in their presentation.
I was away from home a couple of weeks ago, and had little to do. I was looking at the BBC website (in hope) of some interesting reads. It had the same Trump articles that had been running for days. Beyoncés pregnancy pics were also on their main page for three days (headlining as news). I thought my page had froze due to lack of wifi, but then realised that it was just lazy journalism.

A few years back the BBC constantly ran repetitive stories on telephone hacking. It went on for the best part of the year, with other important news items pushed aside.
Of course, it's important that we all know what these newspaper journalists were up to, especially in the case of Milly Dowler - that was particularly awful for her family.
I was less interested in Hugh Grant, Steve Coogan etc. It was constantly on their news on a bloody loop.
Obviously had implications on their own way of working - press freedom and liberties being taken etc, but it was like nothing else was happening in the country.

DianaDors, I don't think you can be watching the BBC properly - if anything it's been too even-handed about Trump. You may have got a different impression purely because there is little positive news about him around at the moment, but that is certainly not the BBC's fault.

As for complaining that the BBC news site devotes too much space to him - how can they not? He's the leader of the most powerful country in the world and he's taking some very major decisions at the moment. It would be grossly irresponsible not to report it.

What I find fascinating is that the Mail consistently hides his activities well down their page online whilst headlining essentially trivial stuff. Anyone would think they didn't want to publicise what he gets up to because it doesn't suit their agenda. I couldn't possibly comment

I find the BBC ridiculously biased in their reporting of Trump - and I don't even like him, so not rooting for him in any way at all.
I would just like to see more news reporting on U.K. issues (not everything Trump says or does effects us).
I actually thought that he would not be inaugurated last month. The BBC presented the Russian honey trap story like it was fact (I thought it was), but it turned out to be a story that came from Buzzfeed with nothing in it.

My friends son asked her last week "how can the Americans get rid of Trump? It's terrible that they have to have him as president now".
She had to explain that some countries have dictators and have no say who leads their country - but the USA have a democratic system and he was voted in.
He was genuinely confused because of what he has seen on the news etc. Obviously his young age is part of the confusion, but he picked up the impression that he is not wanted and should not be there.
I get that impression as an adult watching / reading most of our media too!

I genuinely find the BBC to now be poor value for money. The Licence fee is extortionate and I find their news presenting poor (I remember when Newsnight used to be good).
Some of their TV dramas are enjoyable viewing, but I find it very bad value overall.

Ahh, but pickledcauliflower, surely it's not the most democratic thing to inaugurate a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes?

You friend's son is right to question how this happened. Perhaps he should read about the racist origins of the electoral college.

I believe that the Popular Vote system is an issue that US citizens can address themselves. I can't imagine the average US voter being too interested in our voting system to be fair.
If there are BBC journalists with an issue with the American voting system - I don't think it should in reflect their allegedly unbiased reporting and presentation of news. I don't recall the BBC even mentioning it after previous presidential elections.

Back in 2010 Lib Dem voters found they had helped elect an austerity driven government, after Nick Clegg decided he wanted to be Cameron's deputy Prime Minister. I didn't vote Lib Dem myself, but I wouldn't have been too chuffed if I did.
I actually feel like I am in the USA when I turn (increasing rarely) turn the BBC news now. I would like to know a bit more about what is going on here (and not who is going to be the next Dr Who etc).

OP, I feel for you as in our extended family there are those who will utter some of the statements your Dad makes, though fortunately no-one who is really close.

Do you feel able to chat to your Dad about just ordinary things? If you do, maybe keep to those for a little bit and then ask him, with all his experience (!) why he thinks child sex abuse has been so prevalent in this country for so many years.

And what would he do with UK health tourists – that is those who live in Spain but pop home if they need costly treatment? And belonging to the EU means if we treat someone from there, our government invoices their country. Should we not allow tourists to visit unless they have insurance? Cost of health insurance compared to the total budget is quite small, but he won't believe that.

Or what does he think about increase in city pollution, to get away from his usual topics.

As you will know the climate is changing – the real debate is what's causing it.

If Hilary Clinton is a murderer so was Maggie, Blair and anyone else in a similar position.

Muslims do condemn acts of terror – the Mail doesn't report them.

I'm sure there were sexual assaults in Cologne and on NYE in Paris, London, Birmingham and so on. Everyone concentrates on Rotherham (blame the Empire not EU) but you'll have a hard job finding anything about twenty men (eighteen white) from Liverpool who were doing the same.

Ask if he knows how many women are killed in the UK in domestic settings. And those figures are truly shocking, might start a 'debate' about your feminism.

Just for the record, I'm old and still left wing. Voted Remain, whereas most of our children and able to vote grandkids voted Leave.

All the best.

It's interesting isn't is.....what you call biased reporting I would consider offering more than one side to the story.

It's true the BBC has been shown to have a slight tilt towards right wing bias, but to suggest that they should not report world news that directly affects us in the UK because it's never been reported before is simply daft. The fact are Donald Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin (Hilary's mandate was larger than any previous President with the exception of Obama) Trump was elevated to the White house solely because of the electoral College. This in itself makes it news. The fact that many of the Electoral college voted against their constituents and, in at least one case, the Florida Attorney general who is one of the electors appears to have been bribed (look up the Trump University scandal) means his mandate is extremely shaky.

All of this affects the UK. Especially in a post Brexit world where we need to form new alliances. Forming trade alliances with someone who a) is deeply unpopular (after less than a month!) b) Has a history of dodgy dealings and c) Has an autocratic and somewhat erratic way of working means the UK is at the whim of a powerful, erratic, crook. I sincerely doubt he will last 2 years let alone 4. And when he falls, the knock on effect on the UK will be huge. THIS is why it's all over the news constantly.

Ahh, but pickledcauliflower, surely it's not the most democratic thing to inaugurate a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes?

It is absolutely the most democratic thing when it is a constitutional, legal election in a free democracy. Inaugurating the person who won the popular vote and not the electoral college would have been horrific.

You might as well tell the UK that it isn't the most democratic thing to elect a PM when you don't have an electoral college or proportional representation or whatever alternative method of voting occurs in other democracies.

If someone can prove as required by our system that the russians rigged the election or there was widespread fraud or vote stealing or whatever then I will say that Trump is fraudulently elected but until then (and I loathe him - am a US citizen living in the US) then like it or lump it he is the democratically elected president.

I find a lot of the coverage of him really irritating because people are acting like we are suddenly in a dictatorship. We aren't - we just have a shit president. It won't be the first and probably not the last time. He may not even end up as the worst ever - it would be hard for him to beat the Bush/Chaney foreign policy debacle which is reverberating to this day. All the usual functions of a constitution which carefully balances power are still working just fine. Even the press is working just fine.

I am not suggesting that news on Trump is not reported - I am suggesting that some of the news items reported do not warrant to be headlining for 48 hours at a time (or longer).
The Northern Ireland government collapsed last month, prompting an early election. It was briefly mentioned on the BBC News, before being quickly pushed aside. I feel like I no very little about what is going on in the UK currently, as I can find few reliable news sources that bother to report anything.
My local newspaper has more sports stories than anything else. Sadly, news items that they do report are frequently inaccurate.

As for the BBC and there news reporting, I expect more for my licence fee. I find that the same headlines on a loop to be very poor.

Know (rather than no)

Can't be arsed to read all the ageist virtue signalling posts, but OP I'd love to know if you're teaching your dads grandchildren to be as intolerant, dismissive and belittling of any views that differ to theirs.

You sound a bit unsophisticated. Most civilised people accept differences of opinions - political, religious, dietary - without the need to force others to change their minds.

Your poor dad. I bet he loves it when the Thought Police you come round.

Pretty, perhaps it depends how aggressively unpleasant views are defended. If relatives were going off on racist rants, for example, I wouldn't stay there and would reduce contact.

I certainly wouldn't tell my children that everyone has different points of view and uncle Nigel is entitled to think that ni**ers are really monkeys, or that the world was absolutely built in 7 days because the bible says so.

If people with particularly strong views such as my fictional uncle Nigel want company, they may have to accept that some subjects are off limits or not appropriate. If not, they don't have to have visits.