Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

[BovaryX]

There is an interesting article by Douglas Murray in the DM about the authoritarian, identity politics which have alienated Labour voters and triggered a paradigm shift in the political landscape. It covers some of the themes which Lang GC Pencils and others have been discussing in light of election result.

It is a divide between people who have real-world concerns and those focused on niche and barely significant ones...How, you might ask, have we reached such a state? There is a clue in the Labour Party’s dysfunctional reaction to its catastrophic defeat on Thursday

“ But the most predictable outcome of making certain conversations too difficult to have is that people just won't have them.”

But in some ways, that’s the best result. Now it’s known what some people usually mean mean by “where are you from”, it’s hopefully asked less in the workplace for example.

Though the last time I got it was at the bus stop.

It’s good if these “conversations” stop. Conversation can easily flow without those kinds of questions, in fact it flows better.

Um, I like it when someone asks where I'm from. Obviously if they are trying to make me feel excluded, that changes the situation. I know lots of others feel the same way as well.

"Now it’s known what some people usually mean mean by “where are you from”, it’s hopefully asked less in the workplace for example.

It’s good if these “conversations” stop. "

Really? Just because a few snide people imbue a perfectly innocent, neutral phrase with an implied insult, the rest of us should stop using said phrase?

That feels rather Orwellian; controlling language, dictating what terms should/should not be used, and where/when... we move towards a slippery slope towards the reduction of communication to the most basic set of encoded formulae, set in stone, with no variation or personalisation or nuance or flourish - just in case someone gets offended by mistake?

Chester I didnt say I was banning them.

One poster thinks it’s bad if those conversations stop. I added my observation that I think it would be nice if those conversations stop.

I don’t think it’s a small minority. Anyone who asks me is clearly saying
“You can’t be British because you’re not white”.

I don’t know if the early contributors are still on the thread but it’s like they said - my skin colour wasn’t an issue 20 years ago and now suddenly it’s a big deal. I know some people think they are being polite in asking.

It’s all a big mess when we all chugging along so well.

In Canada they talk about their “heritage”. I quite liked that. As opposed to being “from” anywhere.

My Canadian cousins don’t understand why race is an issue for us.

(Obviously I am talking about recent immigrants. Not First Nations - that’s a whole other story)

Where are you from?
In the UK this also applies to class.
If you work in the town you grew up in then your employer might make assumptions simply because he would know the locality of your school etc.
'Anywhere' people are more anonymous because their employer would have no idea of the reputation of a school, good or bad.

This gives Anywheres an advantage, like being able to reinvent yourself. Yet potentially a disadvantage to Somewheres, where you have to live with your history.
Maybe it's no bad thing, just another stage of growing up and acceptance.

That's true, Wrath.

My dad found it really funny when he first moved to Edinburgh because it really freaked out the middle class professionals he worked with that they couldn't place him on the basis of which school he'd been to. First question was always "where did you go to school?" He told me about one hilarious conversation where the guy he was talking to desperately grasped at ever smaller straws in an attempt to place him - "where are you going to send your son to school?" - "I don't have a son" - "Well, if you did, where would you send him to school?"

I don’t think it’s a small minority. Anyone who asks me is clearly saying
“You can’t be British because you’re not white

But if I were to meet you and have a genuine interest in you and wanted to know where you were from, what question am I allowed to ask you if not "where are you from?"

NotDavidTennant I guess it depends on the context.

Is it a question you’d ask if I was white?

Bus stop lady asked me after we’d all seen in the display that one bus had been diverted. I looked on my phone and all at said bus stop were trying to figure out our other routes. So she could hear clearly that I’m a Londoner, but still chose to ask “where are you from?”

When I said “what do you mean?” she said “well, your SKIN! I can see you’re not from here”.

There was further conversation and I think she was one of those people who thought they were showing some sort of “interest” because yadda yadda multicultural woke blah, but I wanted to scream FUCK OFF YOU RACIST”.

Not “ But if I were to meet you and have a genuine interest in you”

Also, if that happens, conversation flows without these idiotic questions.

Is it a question you’d ask if I was white?

Yes, I have asked white people where they're from if that's what I'm interested in knowing. I would be very wary of asking a non-white person the same question though, because of the problems you've described.

It doesn't seem ideal that we're in a situation where I (and I'm sure others) feel that we have to treat people differently based on their race, although I accept that there currently might not be a better alternative.

Not I dunno. I wouldn’t ask a stranger or new work person etc that question. Just being friendly and chatty is fine and allows you to get to know someone.

I’ve had more than one poster on MN say they are disappointed when they don’t get the back story they wanted and I think it’s weird. No one is there for your entertainment.

We’ve also had many posters say they hate being asked on the basis of accent, for all kinds of reasons.

It’s good if these “conversations” stop. Conversation can easily flow without those kinds of questions, in fact it flows better.

I meant conversation will stop altogether. I wouldn't engage recently with a frankly very dramatic transwoman on a night out. Everyone else was having awkward conversation and I just avoided it. There was no way to engage on terms I felt comfortable with. That's an extreme example (and very specific to that person!), but I think there's a risk that friendships will be harder to strike up if people decide not to engage at all with people they are scared of offending.
And yes, I totally agree that "where are you from" when you're black is different to "where are you from" when you just have a different accent, or an interesting surname.
Also schools questions in Scotland are often sectarian questions.
Those of us who are in some way different have had to deal with questions from the interested and the nasty. Personally I don't mind explaining my heritage or explaining why "which one is the man" is kinda missing the point, provided a: I have the time and b: the person is interested not nasty.
That's just me though, nobody else owes anyone answers.

I’ve had more than one poster on MN say they are disappointed when they don’t get the back story they wanted
Yeah there are people who conduct a full-on interview. I avoid them.

Flying speaking as someone who is currently seeking a “brand new friend” to quote Lloyd Cole, this idea “ but I think there's a risk that friendships will be harder to strike up if people decide not to engage at all with people they are scared of offending” doesn’t worry me.

It feels like the same argument people make about men giving compliments in the workplace and what if it’s hard to form relationships.

It’ll be fine. People managed to do this stuff for ages just by being polite and sensible.

The language thing really reminds me of the Deptford group which got invaded by the Goldsmiths students. The group had been doing great, practical work for years and then the students came and they made the focus telling off people for using the wrong words instead.

So the privileged became the victims, the actual people in need were told they couldn't talk about stuff because their words were wrong, and instead of actually doing anything helpful, the students just language policed and felt like that was a good enough difference to make.

MoltenLasagne yes that's a perfect example.

AutumnRose1 I don't know. On an individual level yes, that makes perfect sense. On a local level the segregation in Northern towns has definitely been a contributing factor in unrest, crime and lack of opportunities for people on both sides of the divide.
I'm not suggesting we all have to stagger through uncomfortable conversations with idiots out of some sense of moral obligation, it's more that otherwise well-meaning people will self-censor to the extent that they will avoid situations entirely.
I'm a big fan of integration and it doesn't happen without interaction.

This review in the Times made me think of this thread:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-left-for-itself-by-david-swift-review-corbyn-6zhfm3rp3?shareToken=cc64de919bb25d5c1f5a5b1fb95a7935

This is a bit ironic. Doesn't Murray discuss in his book the way the whole concept of political correctness has come about and how it serves identity politics?

Antibles
It really is ironic, considering the Douglas Murray article is about the failure of identity politics. I think there is an extremely authoritarian faction of the left who are obsessed with redefining words and controlling speech in order to silence debate. One recurrent tactic is ad hominem and guilt by association fallacy. I have very little time for these tactics and I think they are often deployed to intimidate and silence people.

Igneo
Good article. I think that shutting down debate is the explicit aim of many of those on the left who are obsessed with control language. There have been myriad examples of this tactic. It seems to be a compulsive behavior and it is part of the existential threat to freedom of speech and thought which blights academia.

For example, the stated desire to assist transgender people in achieving full civil rights and respect has morphed into an intolerant and anti-free-speech crusade against people who do not automatically agree that there is no such thing as biological sex (ie most of the country). The result has not been to open debate, but to try to close it down

One recurrent tactic is ad hominem and guilt by association fallacy.
I've noticed a lot of sealioning. This is particularly effective when used by uni students (who basically make arguments and read arguments daily, who understand social media and who have the time to sit and argue) against people who are either less educated or who left education some time ago, who might comment occasionally online.
They probe and dig out inarticulate, half-formed concerns, and then castigate those people for daring to voice their opinion. The result is an unwillingness to discuss; nobody wants to be made a fool of or accused of being discriminatory so they stay in their own echo chamber.
The problem with that, of course, is that there's no moderating influence. If (for example) you only talk to Remainers, the Leave position becomes more and more difficult to comprehend. And if you are a Leaver, you decide not to engage with Remainers who mock you, and so you then become firmly entrenched in a group with people who want to concrete up the Channel Tunnel.

Re schools, esp sectarianism and Edinburgh - that’s one of the reasons I ended up in London and abroad. I couldn’t bear the way people were so desperate to put me in a box based on my school/religion. To me that’s the negative side of the “somewheres” , at least in Scotland.

Re schools, esp sectarianism and Edinburgh - that’s one of the reasons I ended up in London and abroad. I couldn’t bear the way people were so desperate to put me in a box based on my school/religion. To me that’s the negative side of the “somewheres” , at least in Scotland

To be clear "which school did you go to " in an Edinburgh context is to establish if it was private or state and has nothing to do with sectarianism. And even in Edinburgh will only be a consideration in very small circles.

There is a problem with sectarianism in Scotland but it is a Glasgow/west of Scotland problem- don't tar the rest of the country with it.

Generally think the post above is a huge exaggeration- and I usually can't stand the "everything is so much better in Scotland" attitude which seems to be a feature of MN.

Re schools, esp sectarianism and Edinburgh - that’s one of the reasons I ended up in London and abroad. I couldn’t bear the way people were so desperate to put me in a box based on my school/religion. To me that’s the negative side of the “somewheres” , at least in Scotland

I had the same experience with a flatmate from Northern Ireland. We weren’t friends - just found ourselves living together. Her need to put people in buckets was really weird to me (Londoner). She wanted to know what religion I was and what sort of school I went to. As an atheist Londoner Id never been asked these questions before. Ironically she also wanted right-on points for having a Protestant boyfriend (she was Catholic) and the fact that I wasn’t playing that game really annoyed her. Funnily enough we were both on the way to becoming Anywheres. This all happened in Brussels where we were working and she now lives in London and is just as much a part of the metropolitan mindset as I am.