Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

It is possible that these kids were all millionaires on a day trip to Bacup, I'll concede that

better than concede, maybe do a bit of research?

i was hoping you were drunk when you posted. wishing harm and misery - just for a moment! - on a large socioeconomic group of people because you had a bad personal experience with a few people from that group...yes that happens irl and people use those arguments in real life. it's a common aspect of every kind of bigotry.

http://www.theonion.com/article/recently-mugged-friend-a-racist-all-of-a-sudden-4827

xxp

What I was trying to do there was dramatise what I called a brief feeling of total callousness towards someone.

And what's more callous than cheering on as vulnerable people are stripped of benefits and doomed to homelessness?

I'd find more convincing an argument that placed the kind of brutish nihilistic violence and thuggery you describe on the same continnuum as middle england's loathing of people on benefits, both being symptoms of the widespread tendency towards callousness and and actual cruelty which does seem to be on the rise among all strata of society.

(yeah, yeah trenchant, whatev)

what you're talking about is the symptomatic effect of tarring everyone with the same brush, which does happen, and the media perpetuates this as well. but there's a long long history of casting poor people as something to be feared. you hear about 'rough estates', 'dodgy areas', 'places you wouldn't want to walk around at night' in towns and cities all the time, and to some extent it's not down to hysteria or snobbery; they're likely to be fairly dangerous places to go (but maybe not as much as they're made out).

the right-wing takes the stance that poorer people are violent and dangerous by nature; that they are in their predicament because of an inherent propensity to break laws and cause trouble. from this angle, there's a natural inclination to think of these 'undesirables' as less-than human and to enforce retributive sanctions on them (such as cutting welfare etc). hating on 'chavs' therefore becomes a noble sport because they are the ones who are ostensibly ruining society with their 'violent' 'lifestyles'. so welfare cuts get supported and notions of 'lifestyle' get upheld and the vicious circle is complete.

This is an unfair pile-on really in that Cardamon is fully aware that these feelings are wrong and pushes them out of his head, which is more than you can say for huge swathes of the population, including some working class people and even including some benefit claimants.

I mean slashing benefits is hardly going to make a cycle of poverty, crime and violence any better is it?

^

I can relate to some extent with what such people are doing, the idea of getting revenge on the benefits people (who have been melded with 'violent people') is indeed a potent drug

This mixture of blind spite and lack of perspective is eerily similar to the mindset of the young murderers you describe upthread. Presumably you'll want to find out what trauma they have been through in their lives before deciding whether it's somewhat understandable to want them, and a huge swathe of the least privileged people in the country, to be wiped out.

I dunno, based on the reactions here, you lot must either have had similar experiences but nobly forgiven and never want revenge just a little bit, or just never had similar experiences?

The desire for revenge against someone who has harmed you is perfectly understandable, automatically extrapolating that out to millions of other people is laughably egotistical.

but it happens and a lot of people think this way, is what cardamom is saying.

Having a brief, inappropriately vindictive emotional reaction to a traumatic experience is one thing. Believing yourself fully justified and allowing it to dominate your thinking moving forward is quite another. It's the latter that constitutes bigotry to me.

it's the definition of bigotry through and through and it seeps through society, permeating thought at every level.

This mixture of blind spite and lack of perspective is eerily similar to the mindset of the young murderers you describe upthread.

Yep.

widespread tendency towards callousness and and actual cruelty which does

shout out to me for repetition of 'and' making it seem like I'm about to burst into tears there

I think you have to meet victims of violence with some tenderness, upbraiding people for their residual grievances can be monstrous & is not at all helpful

xxp I genuinely had no idea that 'chavs beat me up when I was a kid' was a common reason for people supporting benefit cuts. Does David Cameron have Korn to thank for his slim majority?

xxp I genuinely had no idea that 'chavs beat me up when I was a kid' was a common reason for people supporting benefit cuts. Does David Cameron have Korn to thank for his slim majority?

― Blandford Forum, Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

'muslims bombed my city' is a key reason for people to act aggressively or fearfully towards foreigners, and a knock-on effect is support for immigration sanctions, even if statistically immigrants don't have even a fraction of the negative impact on the country as the media makes out. so maybe?

i was hoping you were drunk when you posted.

Ditto. I've mugged twice, once w/ violence and burgled twice and never once did I think, "Those bastards were on benefits", I just cannot imagine what you are thinking in linking your personal experience of crime without how much fucking tax you're paying, are you sure you're not drunk?

Nah I think fear of violence (or fear of violence towards someone's children) is more prevalent and more pernicious in terms of encouraging this sort of attitude than actual experiences of violence are. Violent crime rates have been going down for two decades but people seem more afraid than ever.

In any case, 'chav' ≠ benefits claimant. Very often (usually?) the identification the prejusice is based on will simply be wrong.

I've mugged twice, once w/ violence and burgled twice

badman lol

Lol, I've BEEN mugged twice that should be.... but then I did grow up in a council estate and I have been on benefits so you know what I'm capable of.(xxp)

I did grow up in a council estate and I have been on benefits

Then you have actual lived experience that contradicts the sort of reaction we're talking about, in a way that most of the people we're discussing here don't.

getting righteous with people about their prejudices seems like a poor substitute for acknowledging pain and providing a degree of empathy and openness that might lead to some sort of healing. telling people they are too damaged is not a great look

Really don't think almost any benefit bashing is coming from a place of genuine pain. More like callousness and kicking-down cruelty.

I doubt George Osborne or Iain Duncan Smith ever got a kicking for wearing a trenchcoat instead of a tracksuit.

Ditto. I've mugged twice, once w/ violence and burgled twice and never once did I think, "Those bastards were on benefits", I just cannot imagine what you are thinking in linking your personal experience of crime without how much fucking tax you're paying, are you sure you're not drunk?

― holger sharkey (Tom D.), Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:14 PM (47 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But maybe that's because you possess the critical faculties not to make those kinds of illogical leaps? Not everyone does.
'People on benefits', as they're portrayed by the current government and the popular media who support it, = 'scroungers', 'skivers', 'wasters', 'drug-addicts', 'hoodies', 'chavs', 'thugs' etc... and the welfare system is portrayed as abetting such 'lifestyles'. It goes back to the idea that claimants are intrinsically bad people and that they're naturally inclined to carry out acts of violence; a zombie epidemic of underclass benefit claimants who need their benefits taken away (which by some huge leaps of logic) will somehow lift their curse...? I never understood the last bit, but it's common propaganda.

I'm thinking a little more broadly re: bigotry & violence, but if people do have a visceral loathing for people on benefits then moral superiority isn't going to address it

at every turn I am demonised and my choices/chances limited may as well mug/beat up one of these privileged twats today

today I have been mugged/beaten up these monsters should be systematically exterminated

but if people do have a visceral loathing for people on benefits then moral superiority isn't going to address it

you propose... moral inferiority?

Seriously, what?

one irony here is that violent crime has actually been falling for yonks

I don't think moralising is helpful. tom d saying how many times he's been a model victim is reminiscent of benefit sceptics talking about how they strived their way out of unemployment, neither is of any use to the people being addressed

Numbers of Channel 4 documentaries about people on benefits meanwhile have risen dramatically.

tom d saying how many times he's been a model victim

Nice one, cunt.

You're saying the fact that didn't associate the perpetrators of those crimes with the benefits system makes me a 'model victim'? Are you kidding me?

Largely sympathetic documentaries xpost

thought you had established yourself as a sufficiently robust character to handle that

Which means what exactly?

I don't think moralising is helpful.

It's a moral issue though afaic. I don't loathe scounger-bashing rhetoric because I think it's sub-optimal from the point of view of economic efficiency.

Largely sympathetic documentaries

lololololololol can see why you wanted yr name removed from that one

Largely sympathetic documentaries xpost

― AlanSmithee, Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:43 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gee what happened there

what did?

2

it's easy to sneer, BB, but Britain's Scroungingest Rob-Dogs was a balanced look at the issues facing unemployed people in marginalized communities today

Iin the last couple of weeks I've seen both How to get a council house, and Jaywick Benefits on Sea (admittedly Channel 5).

Neither of these showed living on benefits as something that anyone would want to do. The benefits claimants were shown sympathetically. The council housing was shown to be of a low standard. The story of a Romanian highlighted the fact that if he had had access to council housing, he would have been able to keep his job, but because he did not he could not. Their lives seemed challenging, and interactions with local government and various regulations demonstrated a power imbalance. The Jaywick programme especially showed the efforts that the local community were making to try and help themselves, through establishing soup kitchens, demonstrating to parliament around street lighting.

There certainly is demonisation of benefits claimants in the media, but it's much more in the press than these documentaries, despite their lurid titles.

There are many many many more TV programmes that demonise lower-class people and benefits claimants - from Jeremy Kyle to Benefits Street. They might show a sympathetic side on occasion for the sake of balance, but it's point-and-shame TV all the same.

Oh aye, Jeremy Kyle is awful.

Which means what exactly?

I took the fact that you were boasting about your own handling of violent crime as a way of chastening another poster to indicate that it was no longer an especially sore point for you

Enjoying ogmor's new "John Harris is away" routine

I don't think there's any way to read Tom D's post as an exhortation to Man Up - quite the opposite in fact.

a sense of justice is not the only condiseration re: victimhood & bigotry, & i think morality is too blunt an instrument, and not often well-received