Just found out that Billie Piper doesn't share social/political views as her ex H

[EddyF]

I just assumed that she shared similar views as that silly man. I am not sure what attracted her to him; she seems pretty level headed and clued up.

I googled her as I saw a movie featuring her and I wanted to watch it but wouldn't have watched it if she was anything like that Lawrence/Laurence, or whatever he's called. I really dislike the man and his face, and unfairly, I had lumbered Bilie with him despite them being separated.

But I can't imagine marrying and having kids with someone who is on a completely different wavelength on such important issues.

I guess there's no aibu but had me reflect if he was always like this/only become like what he is after the divorce.

I would hate to parent with someone with views like him. I would be worried what he's teaching my children all types of intolerance. Plus he's just not very bright.

I'm the one who commented on the fact that BIPOC makes no sense in a British comment. Perhaps by comments were a little harshly phrased (in which case I apologize, Froggy).

However, I also thought I raised some valid points. A lot of US concepts are getting mindlessly dumped on the UK and I'm not sure it always works very well.

And constantly inventing new terms for things for no actual reason (ethnic minority>BAME>POC>BIPOC> next week's wonder word) is a real problem because it's creating intergenerational/education-level-related issues, whereby older generations and less-educated cannot keep up with all the new terminology and increasingly feel alienated from the issue of race itself. It's pretty much guaranteed to create an increasingly polarized society.

@greenteafiend - excellent points about alienation and polarisation. I'd never come across this term BIPOC, but it makes no sense in the UK, similarly that pyramid meme. We have to find a way forward with our experience in the UK, not blindly adopt terms and positions from the USA.

Personally I think BHM in supermarkets is frankly insulting. Black culture and history should be permanently interwoven in our curriculum, not wheeled out for a token month to help sell more crap. You shouldn't be able to use a subject like that for commercial gain.
Plus I'm uneasy about the separate spaces thing - it feels like segregation again. I'm not black, so I don't know if I'm justified in that feeling.

It's not segregation. It's an online space. They launched a network for BAME employees to connect if they wanted to. Also Mentoring Circles... meetings every 3 months to share knowledge and experience.
Why do you think this is insulting?
This isn't divisive, it's inclusive, Sainsbury's aren't perfect but at least they're trying.

And constantly inventing new terms for things for no actual reason (ethnic minority>BAME>POC>BIPOC> next week's wonder word) is a real problem because it's creating intergenerational/education-level-related issues, whereby older generations and less-educated cannot keep up with all the new terminology and increasingly feel alienated from the issue of race itself. It's pretty much guaranteed to create an increasingly polarized society
Best words I read in omg time.

I would however add that it's no so much about jack of education, but lack.of education by the media. All this is filed by media and I dispear that sadly, Media seems to have become our new Politics and even religion for some.

I hate the Media and try to avoid it as much as possible. I get the notices and that enough, but it means that I lose out on all the evolutionary new mindset and focus on acronyms and definitions.

I think I've finished from MN that I'd probably be labelled as racist by this new way of thinking. Thankfully, I am confident in my views and position to know that I definitely am not, but it means that I have to be so careful at what I say as it would take very little for social warriors to attack me and label me as such.

It's a very sad state of affairs, but I console myself to the fact that almost of my friends, family and colleagues seem to think like me, so there are probably many more of us just keeping quiet than it would seem going by what's going on in the virtual world.

I really don't understand why someone from another country/background using a term for themselves that you're not familiar with has to generate such intense hostility, though? Mumsnet isn't ONLY for British people.

I do think greenteafiend actually makes a very good point, but word-policing people from other backgrounds is not acceptable. Plus the debate about me accidentally for a second forgetting I was on a UK forum and typing "BIPOC" simply because I was tired and on auto-pilot and just automatically wrote the term I see around me every day (and GOD how much more do you want me to flagellate and apologise for something I shouldn't have to apologise for) cannot be separated from the broader context.

That discussion didn't happen outside of Mumsnet, or even on this thread. It happened on one of the Meghan bashing threads, where there is a very long history of a certain group of people engaging in really nasty targeted mass-bullying of anyone labelled as being a "Meghan defender." And if anyone says that they're non-white, it's a thousand times worse. Off-board stalking/doxxing and truly horrific posts about me on that other website we're not allowed to name running the gamut through to having every single thing we post jumped on, twisted, attacked, taken apart, nitpicked. If a "Meghan defender" so much as makes a typo, there'll be pages of gleeful howling "Look how stupid Froggy is hahahaha" "yes froggy is certainly showing that all her bragging about having a good career is a lie when she can't even speak English."

You can't ignore that context. You might not like the term BIPOC, that's fine. But if someone makes an innocuous post like "I personally enjoy seeing BIPOC artists on TV" (or whatever it was) and comes back to several pages of hysteria and people ranting at them "HOW DARE YOU say I'm racist if I don't use BIPOC" - that's simply outrageous and simply not true.

Isn't this thread about free speech? Haven't many of you been advocating "if you don't like what someone says, just ignore it"? It's pretty darn hypocritical to expect black and biracial people to "just ignore" racism, and complain about us being overly-sensitive snowflakes choosing to take offence, then in the same breath have a meltdown because a biracial person from a different cultural background used a term you dislike/don't know.

This is just a diagram that someone has made up based on their ideology, it's not some sort of scientific diagram.

I'd love to know what kind of "science" you feel is required before black and biracial people are allowed to call racism, racism.

This is the exact thought-policing the TRA inflict on women. "Oh no you're not allowed to say that [whatever thing] is sexist, because we men have decided it's not sexist."

(And yet again, isn't it telling that all of Fox's defenders / all the anti-wokesters are choosing to ignore and turn a blind eye to all the posts about Fox abusing and harassing women.)

It comes back to the problem that if people from minority groups don't want to label themselves on MN, (I don't) then certain MNers who do like labels try to bully them into disclosure by labelling every disagreement racist. It shows a breathtaking level of arrogance to think you have any right to demand others disclose or that they need to do so to have their opinion valued.

Off-board stalking/doxxing and truly horrific posts about me on that other website we're not allowed to name running the gamut through to having every single thing we post jumped on, twisted, attacked, taken apart, nitpicked. If a "Meghan defender" so much as makes a typo, there'll be pages of gleeful howling

You're not wrong there!
My sympathies are with you Froggy, it's pathetic and I hope it's not upsetting you too much.
I think I've got my very own stalker from there!. Even though I don't post on the H&M threads anymore, this person searches what I do post on here, to keep posting about me there. It just makes me laugh because it is a very weird and stalkery obsession, sorry I'm happily married lol

You can't champion free speech whilst simultaneously demanding everyone's speech meets your approval.

There are a lot of strawmen on this thread which, let's not forget, started on the basis that a woman had to be dissected for her ex's political views. Fox is a currently out of work actor who has found a soapbox that certain people on the right and certain people on the left are publicising widely for him. He's inconsequential. His only importance comes from the attention you give him.

But conflating race with support for identity politics is perhaps one of the more insidious themes running through this thread imo. There is lots of insightful writing from BAME women on the left of the political spectrum about the risks of identity politics, on the need for class and structural analysis and on the pernicious attempts of 'so called liberals' to police and control debate. They are definitely worth reading and reflecting on.

You can't champion free speech whilst simultaneously demanding everyone's speech meets your approval.

That's exactly what Fox and the "anti-wokesters" are doing.

Roussette

I don't like the term anti-wokesters because it's too broad and non-specific. There are political factions and ideologies at play here. They're not all coming from the same place or seeking the same results. They're not all from the right or the left. Broad brushes make it easy to avoid the political and structural discussion that has to happen.

But I do agree Fox doesn't champion free speech and that equally lots of people condemning him don't champion free speech either. It's one of the similarities they share.

Free speech can't only be for the people we agree with.

Fox is a puppet who's got some very powerful people behind him. He's not doing this all by himself.

'Woke' in Fox's eyes means 'anyone who thinks black people are human beings', it seems.

He’s just a publicity hungry little nobody who’s worked out that spouting controversial stuff gets you a few headlines isn’t he?

@froggygoneacourting

This is just a diagram that someone has made up based on their ideology, it's not some sort of scientific diagram.

I'd love to know what kind of "science" you feel is required before black and biracial people are allowed to call racism, racism.

This is the exact thought-policing the TRA inflict on women. "Oh no you're not allowed to say that [whatever thing] is sexist, because we men have decided it's not sexist."

(And yet again, isn't it telling that all of Fox's defenders / all the anti-wokesters are choosing to ignore and turn a blind eye to all the posts about Fox abusing and harassing women.)

The point is that because you put something on a diagram as racist doesn't somehow prove that it is racist. It's no different than saying "I think the idea of white privilege is true/useful".

I'm questioning using the diagram to somehow prove that the idea is correct. It doesn't do that. All it shows is the person who made the diagram agrees with you. It's not an empirical concept.

Adding on that the diagram somehow makes it clear that anyone who disagrees is therefore a racist is another step beyond that. The concept of white privilege is not the only way to think about racial issues. Critical race theory and identity politics are not the only way to think about them either, they all come from one fairly narrow and specific ideological school of thought.
There are many other ways of thinking that are also not racist but do not accept all the same formulations or have all the same opinions about those issues. Some would even argue that CRT is in itself a deeply racist ideology in the true 19th century sense of the word - which isn't to say everyone who subscribes to it sees that or is personally a racist.

No good comes from this desire to label everyone with an even slightly different POV as a racist, and I'm not sure where the impetus to do so comes from. Do people just really have so little exposure to other ideas that they don't know they exist? Or exposure to different thinkers on these topics, including the black and biracial people you mention? How is it that you have decided which black and biracial people get to have an opinion, because you've ignored those who would argue against your diagram. They don't get to have a say in what constitutes racism and how it works? What justifies that?

@PhilSwagielka

Fox is a puppet who's got some very powerful people behind him. He's not doing this all by himself.

'Woke' in Fox's eyes means 'anyone who thinks black people are human beings', it seems.

I don't think he's particularly insightful about this, and he's become reactive. Which is what happens when you have these polarised views, people on both sides become more and more extreme or entrenched.

But I don't think your second comment is justified at all, and it's the sort of thing that creates that polarisation pushes people farther.

But conflating race with support for identity politics is perhaps one of the more insidious themes running through this thread imo. There is lots of insightful writing from BAME women on the left of the political spectrum about the risks of identity politics, on the need for class and structural analysis and on the pernicious attempts of 'so called liberals' to police and control debate. They are definitely worth reading and reflecting on.

Lots written by people on both the left and right about this, from all kinds of backgrounds, from both sexes. There is a lot of people and ways of thinking to listen to about the problems of id politics and CRT, the far-right being the least of them.

Which is how I just find it so difficult to understand how it is that people believe that identity politics is the ONLY non-racist way to think. It's just demonstrably untrue. It's like a Baptist trying to say, not only that Baptists were the most correct form of Christianity, they are the only form. The first is a matter of opinion and arguable, though controversial, the second is demonstrably untrue. And if you try to act like it is you will have a problem when you try to claim, for example, that anyone who doesn't believe in adult baptism must be some sort of pagan.

@Goosefoot - very measured and interesting posts, thank you.

I don't like the term anti-wokesters because it's too broad and non-specific.

The exact same thing is true for the term "wokester" though.

Look at this thread. Posters object to someone being racist, and suddenly every single thing anyone has ever done that's could conceivably be considered liberal/PC/social justice is being hurled at us, conflating being anti-racist with anything "woke", as a way of smearing us and dismissing our concerns about racism. Plenty of posters have said they automatically hate anything "woke" and are against anything "woke"; they're certainly comfortable acting like "woke" is one single monolith, so why not treat them the same way they treat others?

Which is how I just find it so difficult to understand how it is that people believe that identity politics is the ONLY non-racist way to think.

I honestly have no idea what "identity politics" means.

certain MNers who do like labels try to bully them into disclosure by labelling every disagreement racist.
No good comes from this desire to label everyone with an even slightly different POV as a racist

There are also certain MNer who do not believe that racism exists; believe that calling someone racist is an outrageous horrific sin (and that being called racist is far worse than being the victim of racism); who bully anyone who tries to speak about racism; who are extremely invested in dismissing and debunking anyone who claims to have experienced racism; and who have a knee-jerk reaction where they feel obligated to defend anyone "accused" of racism regardless of the context.

Posters on this forum have insisted that Donald Trump is not racist. That the men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery were not racist. That the woman who threatened Christian Cooper wasn't racist. That the men who murdered George Floyd weren't racist, and anyway "George Floyd was a vile animal who deserved to die." That the neo-Nazi rally in London was fine and justified, but the BLM protesters were "violent thugs." On one of the Meghan threads I literally had someone make a post containing the word N**R in all caps (without asterixis, they wrote it out in full) in response to me mentioning that I am not white. People insisted that wasn't racist, too.

If I posted that I'd overheard some guys on the bus making nasty sexist comments, everyone would sympathise with me without questioning or nitpicking or accusing me of having an anti-man agenda. If I posted that I'd overheard some guys on the bus making nasty racist comments, I bet any money I'd get loads of defensive comments saying I was being over-sensitive, "what did they actually say verbatim so we can decide if it's racist or not", accused of being "woke", accused of being a snowflake, accused of being racist against white people, probably accused of making it up, told "who are you to decide what's racist!!!!!!", and no matter what was said in this hypothetical bus conversation there would definitely be people claiming "well I don't think that's racist."

Racism exists. Racism exists on this board. There is a line between debate and outright racial hatred and abuse.

I'm not sure where the impetus to do so comes from.
It comes from being racially abused.

When were you racially abused friggy

That discussion didn't happen outside of Mumsnet, or even on this thread. It happened on one of the Meghan bashing threads, where there is a very long history of a certain group of people engaging in really nasty targeted mass-bullying of anyone labelled as being a "Meghan defender." And if anyone says that they're non-white, it's a thousand times worse.

Yes I saw how TERRIBLE those posts were about Meghan and groups were allowed to get away with it over and again. All their "I'm not a racist but ..."...then ADD racist comment.

So I was shocked to see MN jump on this threat the other day and threaten to close it down I think because someone was calling Fox bad names. Like all of a sudden there's a kill switch for abuse if its not a woman or non white?!!

@froggygoneacourting I'm sure there are some racist posters on MN. What are you trying to achieve by trying to turn every thread into a discussion of what you think about that? You have to accept that not all BAME posters feel the same as you, they don't want to have to state their race to have their opinion valued and they would sometimes like to have the discussion that the thread is supposed to be about. Otherwise you would be as well petitioning all social media to be closed down because people on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit are racist and people on all those sites are misogynist. Does that mean we can't discuss anything else?
A platform for discussion and an opportunity to have your voice heard is so important to minority groups. You're inadvertently trying to stifle it.
And you should read about identity politics and critiques of it because your views seem closely aligned with it and as a PP pointed out, it's a specific political ideology. It's not an universal truth and as long as you treat it as such you're going to feel frustrated that people don't agree with you on issues, how to raise them and how to resolve them.
Personally I much prefer class analysis. Identity politics are good at division and oppression but weak on providing solutions. It's not enough imo to keep restating the same problem and dividing people into bad and good. You need a structure for change.