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.

Gary Lineker admitted himself, that his £2 million pounds salary from the BBC was too much.

He didn't turn it down and offer to do it for less though did he

Can sympathise OP. Not a parent but someone I used to care very deeply for. Similar background: teacher, left-leaning, highly intelligent. Now posting every absurd (and at times sickening) conspiracy theory around from antivaxx stuff, climate change and 9/11 to pizzagate and SandyHook, on Facebook. Oh as well as being firmly in the Trump camp (apparently Hilary Clinton is part of a circle of ritualistic child abusers and murderers). I mourn the loss of the man I once knew. The only explanation I have been able to come up with is that about 6 years ago he confessed to dabbling with drugs and had been feeling a bit paranoid. Don't want to imply that your father is a druggie but it does seem such a radical shift that I would be wondering if there was something going on (more than the common slight shift to conservatism in old age which seems so common).

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.

They think they know it all from having read about it in a couple of history lessons.
Never mind the people who have actually lived through those experiences and listening to them.
As far as they're concerned, If the person is old, the person doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.

Our values and politics are formed on our life experiences, not on books.

The thing about books is that they let you know about other people's life experiences, too.

You can't make a comparison if you don't remember living in the UK before multiculturalism was widespread. You can say with all honesty that your life is good, you feel enriched by the values that other cultures bring to the UK (and I have learned a great deal from my multicultural friends, I'm not being flippant) but you can't say that older people who do not share your views are incorrect if their experience is the opposite to yours. You simply can't make the comparison unless you've experienced both situations.

The most awful thing is that people who say with all honesty that their life was better before multiculturalism have had their opinion criminalised. You've effectively gagged anyone who doesn't agree that multiculturalism is the best thing since sliced bread. Obviously there are downsides to multiculturalism, but they can never be discussed, it's rascist, xenophobic to do so. So an older person has two options, to be silent and suppress their unhappiness, or be accused of being out of touch and rascist if they voice their own experience.

Balance, equality and understanding are the way forward.

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

But that's THEIR system, a type of proportional rep. The Electoral College system is how it's done and has been for decades. If the Americans don't like it they can petition to change it. You cant expect USA to suspend voting rules just for one election, surely.

The most awful thing is that people who say with all honesty that their life was better before multiculturalism have had their opinion criminalised

For some people, I'm sure it was. For other people, life was pretty crap.

I have no issue with people saying their life was better before. I do have an issue with people who want to take rights away from others who have gained rights that they didn't have before.

It's not ok to discriminate.
It's not ok to attack people because of the group they belong to.
It's not ok to be sexist.

Personally I am glad we have such laws and that society is changing. I am glad that we are tackling racist, homophobic and sexist abuse that people face.

I am sure there are many people who say that life was better for them 'in the old days'. Who do have a problem with multi culturalism. Who do have a problem with gay rights. Women's rights.

I'm glad that we have changed as a society and are more tolerant to people who are different. I fear that the rise of people like Trump and Farage will have an effect on people who are different and will lead to an eroding of hard earned rights.

The most awful thing is that people who say with all honesty that their life was better before multiculturalism have had their opinion criminalised.

No, they haven't. 'Criminalised' would mean there was an actual criminal penalty imposed. What you seem to be asking for is that people with one set of views should be allowed to say whatever they want - but not have anyone express any critical views in response. So it should be fine for person A to say to person B "my life was better before people who look like you lived here", but not fine for person B to say "that sounds racist"?

People are allowed to think and feel and say whatever they want about their own lives. If someone wants to say that their life was better before women were entitled to equal pay, then they're free to say that. And people who think that's a pretty unpleasant thing to say are allowed to say that, too.

Which brings us back to equality Amisparticus.

Equal means equal.

So the older person's experience should be treated with equal respect to the younger person. What's the alternative? Do we forcibly split towns into racially balanced and sexually diverse streets so each meets it quota? Or do we respect each individual's right to live as they please (within the UK's law)?

JustAnotherPoster00 Thu 16-Feb-17 01:23:15
For those saying the BBC is balanced

evolvepolitics.com/report-reveals-biased-bbc-has-high-dependency-on-the-conservatives-for-statistics/

Oh the irony of saying the BBC is not balanced, and backing this up with an article from evolvepolitics.com, which has no bias at all, absolutely none, totally impartial

I was around in the 80s when the Tory government absolutely loathed the BBC for supposedly being a hotbed of pinko-lefties. They can't win!

If the experience of the person is that their life was better because all the people round them had white skin and believed in Jesus like they did, then that's going to raise eyebrows 53rd.

If they are saying that none of their neighbours speak English and all their social clubs have shut down so they feel very isolated and lonely, then throwing an accusation of rascism their way seems rather unfair does it not?

If they are saying that none of their neighbours speak English and all their social clubs have shut down so they feel very isolated and lonely, then throwing an accusation of rascism their way seems rather unfair does it not?

That is not what the OP's father is saying, though, is it?

We do respect individuals rights to live as they please within the law. It doesn't stop someone being racist or expressing an opinion about immigration. The only thing generally stopping that is social disapproval or political correctness or politeness- whatever you want to call it.

The OP's father's situation is not the same, no.

But, as we do not live in an autocracy, he is free to think what he likes. A different opinion to the sanctioned norm doesn't mean the person has dementia as some have mentioned here. Agreeing with a white man with a sunburnt neck from manual work, I won't repeat the rascist term the OP used, is the OP's father's perogative. I assume the OP's father is not planning on commiting a hate crime? That would be a problem.

There is an argument that a survey carried out in an area where you have a lot of Muslims / people of a certain faith who have decided to live in an area with people like them is NOT representative of people of that faith as a whole

You're right, there is - but I doubt it's an argument that would find favour with some members of such communities. IME they might even argue that it's precisely because they're such staunch believers in (insert religion, belief, etc) that they feel the need to live among others of like minds

I'm also a bit concerned about the PP who mentioned that, while at Uni, they were "told to read the Guardian". Surely the sensible advice would be to read from a variety of sources in order to gain a more rounded view?

A different opinion to the sanctioned norm doesn't mean the person has dementia

But the OP's concern is not that he has 'a different opinion to the sanctioned norm', and big personality changes along with paranoia can indeed signal dementia.

as we do not live in an autocracy, he is free to think what he likes

Is anyone here suggesting otherwise? Were there people upthread suggesting dragging him off to the gulags?

The BBC definitely is coining it. Apparently they over-man every TV and radio production. Newsnight is no longer very interesting since Paxman left. He left because the new editor is hard Left and they did not see eye to eye. He would have continued, but to make it look good for both sides, he explained he was semi-retiring.

My mother has been right wing radicalised. It's awful. She can't have a civilised conversation anymore.

So the older person's experience should be treated with equal respect to the younger person. What's the alternative? Do we forcibly split towns into racially balanced and sexually diverse streets so each meets it quota? Or do we respect each individual's right to live as they please

The older person who lived in a time where gay men were criminalised, marital rape was legal, women who were unmarried were forced to give up babies, 'no blacks or Irish signs were allowed' is of course allowed to express an opinion that life was better for them in the old days.

But I am glad we don't live in those days anymore. I bet there are some people who would love to go back to those days.

I'm glad that we have changed as a society and are more tolerant to people who are different

Indeed, but too many of the people coming into the UK from outside of Europe are not tolerant. They are light years behind the changes that we have undergone, and some newcomers even try to impose their cultural norms on us - esp. women. We cannot afford to take even a step back in what we have gained, but unfortunately this is being allowed to happen because exemptions are made for this or for that.

I agree with pp radical anything isn't really good, whether it be left or right.

The term "redneck" was my lazy shorthand.

As it happens, the gentleman in question lives in the northern States and has an indoor, albeit blue collar job, which he no longer does as he is too obese to work, too poor to afford medical insurance and vehemently opposed to the Affordable Healthcare Act.

I shouldn't have used the term, but there are no racial undertones.

I'm also slightly worried by your conflating 'radicalisation' - with your old British dad moving his views right of centre in a country that encourages free thought, with brainwashed automatons who actually kill innocent people in the name of religion.

Hyperbole? Hysterical, definitely.

If you really must see yourself as a crusader for inclusion and tolerance (oh, the irony), you have a great wealth of truly dangerous despots worldwide who would benefit from a bracing half-hour's exposure to your generous opinions.

"The older person who lived in a time where gay men were criminalised, marital rape was legal, women who were unmarried were forced to give up babies, 'no blacks or Irish signs were allowed' is of course allowed to express an opinion that life was better for them in the old days.

But I am glad we don't live in those days anymore. I bet there are some people who would love to go back to those days"

There most certainly are people who would like a return to this Amisparticus. That's why we must never accept Sharia law in the UK.

I repeat, equality is the way forward.

FebruaryRat, if there are indeed no racial undertones to the derogatory term "redneck" please do explain where the name originates from?

Ooooo this is a bit like call my bluff, any other oldies (rascists) remember that programme? Join in if you do!