Billy Bragg on free speech, Morrissey, and the resurgence of the Far Right - GQ Magazine

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Uncleskinny, Jul 11, 2019.

By Uncleskinny on Jul 11, 2019 at 6:56 PM
  1. Uncleskinny

    Uncleskinny It's all good Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,012
    Location:
    On the moors
    New GQ Article by Billy Bragg:

    https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/music/article/billy-bragg-interview-morrissey-free-speech

    Excerpt: "So, call it what it is, says Bragg. Morrissey is now a man who knowingly shares white supremacist material on his platforms and, when challenged, doubles down. And while he is free to do so, that doesn’t mean he’s a victim when there’s a backlash. “Liberty without accountability is impunity, which is the most dangerous kind of freedom. Freedom isn't a universal good. There are kinds of freedom that are really, really dangerous.”
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Troll Troll x 1

Comments

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Uncleskinny, Jul 11, 2019.

    1. reelfountain
      reelfountain
      This video is not a spoof I assure you - this is the current day liberal left, tears and all. Look in the mirror Mr @Surface!
    2. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      trt.jpg
      • Funny Funny x 1
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
    3. marred
      marred
      Bragg blows.
      • Insightful Insightful x 1
      • Troll Troll x 1
    4. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      The same will forever be said regarding the reasoning and logic behind all your posts, son.:rock:
    5. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      Beware. I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges.[​IMG]
    6. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      For once, almost you told the truth about yourself. You still remain most silent on the issue of your place as a woman in the extreme right movement, however. Your replies to others show a hesitance, touchiness and major reluctance to give an honest answer. Please could you possibly attempt to do so, if it's none too difficult for you? Thank you.
    7. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      Really? Ya think?

      https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...c-dwvSDps4laAGQHumPb54c08IBgUuOrwW_RX_mGyWIuU

      rahman-640x480.png

      "A 20-strong gang set upon four tree surgeons in Rochdale, England, calling them “white bastards” and cutting off a teenage worker’s hand with an axe.

      27-year-old Habibur Rahman, of Milnrow Road, Rochdale, gathered the mob after the workers had stopped him from abusing an elderly woman, the Manchester Evening News reports.

      Rahman, incensed that he had been “disrespected” on his “territory”, tracked the four workers to the property they were working on in the rape gang blighted city, blocking them in by parking his car across the driveway while the mob approached armed with weapons including a claw hammer, knives, machetes, a knuckle-duster — and the fateful axe.

      “I am not going to let them leave,” Rahman said from his car, abusing the workers as “white bastards” who were in his “country”, the court heard.

      “They’re going to get what they deserve. They’re going to get stabbed.”
      • Informative Informative x 1
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
    8. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      Breitbart? Thanks for confirming the limited scope of your intellect with your reply. With fans like you, Morrissey needs no detractors to sabotage his career. :-D
      • Informative Informative x 1
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
    9. The Truth
      The Truth
      I have a question because I started tuning out all this Billy Bragg attention seeking a while back. I know that Billy Bragg keeps talking about Morrissey. Has Morrissey responded?
    10. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      Because the source of the facts is more important than the savagery of the attack, right? You sad degenerate human being.
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
      • Troll Troll x 1
    11. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      Why, thank you! You reply effectively demonstrates & confirms the level of your cognitive dissonce. Cambridge Analytica did wonders upon you, as you've shown us - and have shown yourself as that easily taken. Do carry on. That undercover journalist in the group presently will have plenty more to add to the file they have on you presently.
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
    12. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      Don't bother with Hoffychops, mate. He's fallen so far down the rabbit hole, he doesn't even know that the brainwashing has dragged him under. This is where he's heading, if he hasn't arrived at somewhere uncivilised already?
      • Troll Troll x 1
    13. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      This is from a right-wing website, Hoffychops. Will your cognitive dissonce dismiss this. If so, then you truly are a lost soul who's mind is Plasticene to the propagandists.


      Why Are Conservatives More Susceptible to Believing Lies?
      An interplay between how all humans think and how conservatives tend to act might actually explain a lot about our current moment.
      By John Ehrenreich

      Nov 09, 20179:00 AM
      [​IMG]
      Photo illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo. Photos by FoxNews and FoxNews.com.

      Many conservatives have a loose relationship with facts. The right-wing denial of what most people think of as accepted reality starts with political issues: As recently as 2016, 45 percent of Republicans still believed that the Affordable Care Act included “death panels” (it doesn’t). A 2015 poll found that 54 percent of GOP primary voters believed then-President Obama to be a Muslim (…he isn’t).

      Then there are the false beliefs about generally accepted science. Only 25 percent of self-proclaimed Trump voters agree that climate change is caused by human activities. Only 43 percent of Republicans overall believe that humans have evolved over time.

      And then it gets really crazy. Almost 1 in 6 Trump voters, while simultaneously viewing photographs of the crowds at the 2016 inauguration of Donald Trump and at the 2012 inauguration of Barack Obama , insisted that the former were larger. Sixty-six percent of self-described “very conservative” Americans seriously believe that “Muslims are covertly implementing Sharia law in American courts.” Forty-six percent of Trump voters polled just after the 2016 election either thought that Hillary Clinton was connected to a child sex trafficking ring run out of the basement of a pizzeria in Washington, D.C., or weren’t sure if it was true.


      If “truth” is judged on the basis of Enlightenment ideas of reason and more or less objective “evidence,” many of the substantive positions common on the right seem to border on delusional. The left is certainly not immune to credulity (most commonly about the safety of vaccines, GMO foods, and fracking), but the right seems to specialize in it. “Misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right,” concluded a team of scholars from the Harvard Kennedy School and Northeastern University at a February 2017 conference. A BuzzFeed analysis found that three main hyperconservative Facebook pages were roughly twice as likely as three leading ultraliberal Facebook pages to publish fake or misleading information.

      Why are conservatives so susceptible to misinformation? The right wing’s disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education. College-educated Republicans are actually more likely than less-educated Republicans to have believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim and that “death panels” were part of the ACA. And for political conservatives, but not for liberals, greater knowledge of science and math is associated with a greater likelihood of dismissing what almost all scientists believe about the human causation of global warming.


      It’s also not just misinformation gained from too many hours listening to Fox News, either, because correcting the falsehoods doesn’t change their opinions. For example, nine months following the release of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the percentage of Republicans who believed that he was not American-born was actually higher than before the release. Similarly, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Democrats corrected their previous overestimates of the unemployment rate after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the actual data. Republicans’ overestimated even more than before.

      Part of the problem is widespread suspicion of facts—any facts. Both mistrust of scientists and other “experts” and mistrust of the mass media that reports what scientists and experts believe have increased among conservatives (but not among liberals) since the early ’80s. The mistrust has in part, at least, been deliberately inculcated. The fossil fuel industry publicizes studies to confuse the climate change debate; Big Pharma hides unfavorable information on drug safety and efficacy; and many schools in conservative areas teach students that evolution is “just a theory.” The public is understandably confused about both the findings and methods of science. “Fake news” deliberately created for political or economic gain and Donald Trump’s claims that media sites that disagree with him are “fake news” add to the mistrust.


      But, the gullibility of many on the right seems to have deeper roots even than this. That may be because at the most basic level, conservatives and liberals seem to hold different beliefs about what constitutes “truth.” Finding facts and pursuing evidence and trusting science is part of liberal ideology itself. For many conservatives, faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth.

      To understand how these differences manifest and what we might do about them, it helps to understand how all humans reason and rationalize: In other words, let’s take a detour into psychology. Freud distinguished between “errors” on the one hand, “illusions” and “delusions” on the other. Errors, he argued, simply reflect lack of knowledge or poor logic; Aristotle’s belief that vermin form out of dung was an error. But illusions and delusions are based on conscious or unconscious wishes; Columbus’s belief that he had found a new route to the Indies was a delusion based on his wish that he had done so.

      Although Freud is out of favor with many contemporary psychologists, modern cognitive psychology suggests that he was on the right track. The tenacity of many of the right’s beliefs in the face of evidence, rational arguments, and common sense suggest that these beliefs are not merely alternate interpretations of facts but are instead illusions rooted in unconscious wishes.


      This is a very human thing to do. As popular writers such as Daniel Kahneman, Cass Sunstein, and Richard Thaler have pointed out, we often use shortcuts when we reason, shortcuts that enable us to make decisions quickly and with little expenditure of mental energy. But they also often lead us astray—we underestimate the risks of events that unfold slowly and whose consequences are felt only over the long term (think global warming) and overestimate the likelihood of events that unfold rapidly and have immediate consequences (think terrorist attacks).

      Our reasoning is also influenced (motivated, psychologists would say) by our emotions and instincts. This manifests in all kinds of ways: We need to maintain a positive self-image, to stave off anxiety and guilt, and to preserve social relationships. We also seek to maintain consistency in our beliefs, meaning that when people simultaneously hold two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, one or the other must go. And so we pay more attention and give more credence to information and assertions that confirm what we already believe: Liberals enthusiastically recount even the most tenuous circumstantial evidence of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians, and dyed-in-the-wool Trump supporters happily believe that the crowd really was bigger at his candidate’s inauguration.


      These limits to “objective” reasoning apply to everyone, of course—left and right. Why is it that conservatives have taken the lead in falling off the deep edge?

      The answer, I think, lies in the interaction between reasoning processes and personality. It’s each person’s particular motivations and particular psychological makeup that affects how they search for information, what information they pay attention to, how they assess the accuracy and meaning of the information, what information they retain, and what conclusions they draw. But conservatives and liberals typically differ in their particular psychological makeups. And if you add up all of these particular differences, you get two groups that are systematically motivated to believe different things.

      Psychologists have repeatedly reported that self-described conservatives tend to place a higher value than those to their left on deference to tradition and authority. They are more likely to value stability, conformity, and order, and have more difficulty tolerating novelty and ambiguity and uncertainty. They are more sensitive than liberals to information suggesting the possibility of danger than to information suggesting benefits. And they are more moralistic and more likely to repress unconscious drives towards unconventional sexuality.


      Fairness and kindness place lower on the list of moral priorities for conservatives than for liberals. Conservatives show a stronger preference for higher status groups, are more accepting of inequality and injustice, and are less empathic (at least towards those outside their immediate family). As one Tea Party member told University of California sociologist Arlie Hochschild, “People think we are not good people if we don’t feel sorry for blacks and immigrants and Syrian refugees. But I am a good person and I don’t feel sorry for them.”

      Baptist minister and former Republican congressman J.C. Watts put it succinctly. Campaigning for Sen. Rand Paul in Iowa in 2015 he observed, “The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe people are fundamentally bad, while Democrats see people as fundamentally good.”

      These conservative traits lead directly to conservative views on many issues, just as liberal traits tend to lead to liberal views on many issues. But when you consider how these conservative traits and these conservative views interact with commonly shared patterns of motivated reasoning, it becomes clearer why conservatives may be more likely to run into errors in reasoning and into difficulty judging accurately what is true and what is false.


      It’s not just that Trump is “their” president, so they want to defend him. Conservatives’ greater acceptance of hierarchy and trust in authority may lead to greater faith that what the president says must be true, even when the “facts” would seem to indicate otherwise. The New York Times cataloged no less than 117 clearly false statements proclaimed publicly by Trump in the first six months of his presidency, with no evident loss in his supporters’ faith in him. In the same way, greater faith in the legitimacy of the decisions of corporate CEOs may strengthen the tendency to deny evidence that there are any potential benefits from regulation of industry.

      Similarly, greater valuation of stability, greater sensitivity to the possibility of danger, and greater difficulty tolerating difference and change lead to greater anxiety about social change and so support greater credulity with respect to lurid tales of the dangers posed by immigrants. And higher levels of repression and greater adherence to tradition and traditional sources of moral judgment increase the credibility of claims that gay marriage is a threat to the “traditional” family.


      Conservatives are also less introspective, less attentive to their inner feelings, and less likely to override their “gut” reactions and engage in further reflection to find a correct answer. As a result, they may be more likely to rely on error-prone cognitive shortcuts, less aware of their own unconscious biases, and less likely to respond to factual corrections to previously held beliefs.

      The differences in how conservatives and liberals process information are augmented by an asymmetry in group psychological processes. Yes, we all seek to keep our social environment stable and predictable. Beliefs that might threaten relationships with family, neighbors, and friends (e.g., for a fundamentalist evangelical to believe that humans are the result of Darwinian evolution or for a coal miner to believe that climate change is real and human-made) must be ignored or denied, at peril of disrupting the relationships. But among all Americans, the intensity of social networks has declined in recent years. Church attendance and union membership, participation in community organizations, and direct political involvement have flagged. Conservatives come disproportionately from rural areas and small towns, where social networks remain smaller, but denser and more homogeneous than in the big cities that liberals dominate. As a result, the opinions of family, friends, and community may be more potent in conservative hotbeds than in the more anonymous big cities where Democrats dominate.

      The lack of shared reality between left and right in America today has contributed greatly to our current political polarization. Despite occasional left forays into reality denial, conservatives are far more likely to accept misinformation and outright lies. Deliberate campaigns of misinformation and conservative preferences for information that fits in with their pre-existing ideology provide only a partial explanation. Faulty reasoning and judgment, rooted in the interactions between modes of reasoning and judgment shared by all with the specific personality patterns found disproportionately among conservatives may also play a central role.
    14. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      Meaningless drivel that has absolutely nothing to do with the story i posted.
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
    15. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      Are you saying this attempted murder didn't happen?
      • Redundant Redundant x 1
    16. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      Talking about your No.1 specialist subject yet again, I see. Namely you. Funny how you gush forth and use reference for your hate a site know for its lies and fake news. But when @Uncleskinny, @The Truth, @Trill, @the Vengeful Milkshake and the individual that challenged you earlier takes you out of your comfort zone, you oscillate wildly and put you powerlessness up for full discussion. If that undercover journalist is truly, you've inadvertently set him up for life. He's gotten a big scoop out of you.
    17. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann

      You've sent me an article talking about right-wing lies, which therefore means you don't believe this attack ever happened. How bizarre.
      • Like Like x 1
    18. Stephen Hofmann
      Stephen Hofmann
      Why do you care where information comes from more than the details of what actually happened, which is of a racist attempted murder? As a left-wing bedwetter, surely you should be outraged at the racist angle of the attack? Or is your anti-racist venom only retained when it's perpetuated on minorities?
      • Insightful Insightful x 1
    19. Anonymous
      Anonymous
      And still Hoffychops rambles on to avail. That's journo's getting a Pulitzer out of you, that's for sure. Prepare for the knock upon the door. And do get your Neo-Nazi sympathasiser's equivalent of an 'X-Factor'/'The Voice' sob story ready. There's a good sap! :thumb:
    20. reelfountain
      reelfountain
      Cult members of liberal-leftism are not renowned for their logic or rationale, I'm afraid. Just look at Prince Harry, half the man he was now, destroyed by the white guilt his (black but proudly bleached) controlling wife has infected him with.

      Apparently the Muslim Rochdale attackers said to their white victims: "What the fuck are you doing in my country?"

      This is the recommended population replacement spoken of in an official UN report. Since this paper, some call it the Great Replacement, others the Kalergi Plan, but it all means the same thing. Infecting cancer into the host nation to undermine, take over and dominate and ultimately destroy.

      Anybody who supports mass immigration into Britain is complicit in these predictable (and mostly hushed up) racist attacks against whites in our country.
      Last edited: Oct 21, 2019
      • Like Like x 1

Share This Page