Stabbings at a daycare in Southport

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

3 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

And as I am a decent, tolerant individual I take on board what you say about Harehills and agree with you that the authorities have been very quiet about it. 

As a decent individual I also condemn the violence in Harehills, and hope all that took part have their collars felt.

As a decent individual I stand by my view that there is no place for the violence and mob rule on show at the moment and I condemn whoever is behind it.

If the violence is being organised by right wing groups then I also condemn them for their hypocrisy for not reacting in the same way when a democratically elected MP was murdered by an actual Muslim (and Islamic State sympathiser to boot)............

Agree with you there 'Faded' - probably a little too deep for some.... but gives the lie to the proclaimed 'cause' for the riot.

Edited August 3 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 3,042]

8 hours ago, Aggy said:

The last government came up with the idea of deporting illegal immigrants to Rwanda and made immigration a massive part of their re-election rhetoric. Not exactly dismissing immigration out of hand is it? 

And what exactly are the electorate asking for? As I said above in response to LYB, if one part of society is feeling ‘marginalised’ because of another, larger, group of society disagreeing with them, why do you think the smaller group’s opinions should take priority?

You're asking a lot of questions and I don't really know why you think I or anyone else would have the answers to them. Have you got any thoughts about it or are you going to just just break out the fiddle while Rome burns?

Edited August 3 by littleyellowbirdie

[Barbe bleu 989]

11 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Agree with yoru there 'Faded' - probably a little too deep for some.... but gives the lie to the proclaimed 'cause' for the riot.

There seems to be an odd idea that events like this have one cause, they very rarely do and instead whilst there may be one spark the causes are many and varied.

Interesting to see which way starmer moves on this.

Does he ramp up the pressure as he did and invite accusations of hypocrisy and 'two tier policing'

Does he largely ignore it all and hope it goes away itself

Does he come out with a divide and rule the "some of have legitimate concerns that we now hear and will address but your cause has been hijacked by those who just want the thrill of the crowd and the riot"

Does he do something else?

What would you do if you were him?

 

 

Edited August 3 by Barbe bleu

[A Load of Squit 6,030]

45 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I don’t recall this level of condemnation on here after the Harehills riots a few weeks back 

I don't recall this level of rioting when Lucy Letby murdered 7 children.

 

[Fen Canary 1,334]

12 minutes ago, Aggy said:

No - that graph doesn’t tell us anything about people feeling marginalised. That’s a conclusion you’ve jumped too far to reach.

All it shows is that a majority of people think immigration could be lower - where is the column for “and I am angry, feel ignored and marginalised as a result of my views” ? 

When you vote for a party, you accept not every one of their policies is going to align exactly with yours. If immigration is so important to the majority - to the extent they feel ignored, marginalised and want to start rioting - then I’m shocked that only fourteen percent voted Reform. The majority you mention had an anti-immigration vote option and didn’t take it. 

That rather suggests the majority don’t feel marginalised or upset or angry about immigration. The majority might think it should be lower - but it’s no different to the government doing something different to their views on the economy, housing, foreign policy, education, benefits, etc.  That’s not marginalising people, it’s how democracy works. 

The riots - again I think you’re jumping a little far to use those as an example of lots of people feeling marginalised. People are looting shops - what has that got to do with immigration? People are attacking the police - what’s that got to do with immigration? People are attacking mosques - that’s religiously motivated, not wider immigration. And it’s hardly a significant majority - 8 people were arrested in Sunderland. I’m sure there were a few more there, but we’re not even talking about a small percentage of the population - it’s below tiny. A handful of yobs, many of whom I suspect would have joined in for any reason. 

As to Rwanda and the Tories, the Tories made a big deal about trying to lower immigration. They might not have been very good at it, which is presumably why a whole fourteen percent of the population voted for Reform instead. But it’s a bit ridiculous imo to say the Tories dismissed concerns about immigration out of hand and people have been ignored on the subject.

It’s also a bit ridiculous to blame the Tories’ failure to do anything about immigration on other unelected groups and the next government. Starmer “canning” a scheme of his predecessors isn’t marginalising a group - it’s literally what happens after every election. If people don’t like it, suck it up to the next election and then vote differently.

As to brexit, all the polls show the brexit vote would be different if it was happening again/now and that many who voted leave regret doing so. What you seem to be saying is a majority who now don’t support brexit should shut up, but a minority who feel marginalised about immigration should be given more attention. A strange stance.

 

 

So despite a majority saying they want immigration reduced, immigration being labelled a top 3 concern just behind the economy and health service by the electorate and a single issue party in its first election (in a FPTP system that makes it much harder for smaller parties) coming in third place, you don’t think that immigration is a subject worth discussing? You say that only14% voted for the most anti immigration party, but tell me which parties campaigned on increasing immigration or letting in more illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in the last 20 years, and how many votes did they receive? 

You genuinely can’t see how attitudes like that leads to alienation and resentment amongst those who have had to live with the negative effects of the nations immigration policies for the last two decades? You still don’t understand how that arrogance led to us leaving the EU?

The Tories were voted in on a platform of reducing immigration and instead ramped it up and paid the price at the subsequent election. Now Starmer has cancelled the Rwanda scheme he has to politically own every boat that crosses the Channel so I hope he has a good replacement lined up otherwise anger is only going to grow.

[Fen Canary 1,334]

3 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

I don't recall this level of rioting when Lucy Letby murdered 7 children.

 

There wasn’t, that wasn’t the question though was it. Why are all those so angrily condemning the current riots not doing the same a few weeks ago?

[Well b back 3,567]

35 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I am happy they got locked up, their sentences were fully deserved. However that’s not really related to what I said is it 

And yet you support the actions of these wimps. They are pathetic and scared to go into certain areas. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,196]

4 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

There wasn’t, that wasn’t the question though was it. Why are all those so angrily condemning the current riots not doing the same a few weeks ago?

A reasonable response to that would be because it was local unrest by local people over the perceived treatment of a local person by the authorities.

As far as I am aware the violence did not spread across the country.............

 

[Well b back 3,567]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

There wasn’t, that wasn’t the question though was it. Why are all those so angrily condemning the current riots not doing the same a few weeks ago?

Because they are a bunch of w****** trying to bring our country down using lies. They are supported by the few not the majority. If this was Muslims attacking churches they would be outraged I guess. They are beating up police, NHS workers, looting businesses, complete and utter dirt.

I am not saying Farage has the same ultimate goals as Hitler but so far his actions to get to the top are similar, get a few seats in power, use that voice to mobilise thugs, advance your power.

 

[Well b back 3,567]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

There wasn’t, that wasn’t the question though was it. Why are all those so angrily condemning the current riots not doing the same a few weeks ago?

To show how thick they are, in the protests ( they are not protests ) there are some of the rioters doing Nazi salutes, whilst in the rioters are Israeli flags.

[Fen Canary 1,334]

23 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

And as I am a decent, tolerant individual I take on board what you say about Harehills and agree with you that the authorities have been very quiet about it. 

As a decent individual I also condemn the violence in Harehills, and hope all that took part have their collars felt.

As a decent individual I stand by my view that there is no place for the violence and mob rule on show at the moment and I condemn whoever is behind it.

If the violence is being organised by right wing groups then I also condemn them for their hypocrisy for not reacting in the same way when a democratically elected MP was murdered by an actual Muslim (and Islamic State sympathiser to boot)............

I agree, I’ve no time for the rioters and am not going to defend them, despite others on here trying to spin it that way. I simply abhor hypocrisy. Unfortunately I think the current situation is much more dangerous than people are giving it credit for.

Whilst the fighting is being done by opportunistic hooligans, there is an undercurrent of frustration amongst a much wider section of society that they’ve latched on to and used as an excuse. In the last little while we’ve had the Clapham acid attack, the refugee who punched a female copper getting off community service because he couldn’t speak English, the riots by predominantly foreign born nationals in Harehills, Bangladeshi riots in London, a soldier stabbed in Gillingham, protests against the police kicking the scumbag in Manchester, machetes in Southend etc. While Starmer can talk tough and threaten to clamp down (correctly) on those rioting here, the fact he didn’t do the same for the Harehills or Tower Hamlets riots simply adds to this frustration that certain groups enjoy preferential treatment.

Britain has traditionally been a high trust society, but I can see that fading as time goes on, and that’s not something that we should take lightly 

[Barbe bleu 989]

So what should starmer do?

[Fen Canary 1,334]

4 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

So what should starmer do?

He should have had the same reaction for all of them, the current ones, Harehills and Tower Hamlets. Bit late for that now though 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,196]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

So despite a majority saying they want immigration reduced, immigration being labelled a top 3 concern just behind the economy and health service by the electorate and a single issue party in its first election (in a FPTP system that makes it much harder for smaller parties) coming in third place, you don’t think that immigration is a subject worth discussing? You say that only14% voted for the most anti immigration party, but tell me which parties campaigned on increasing immigration or letting in more illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in the last 20 years, and how many votes did they receive? 

You genuinely can’t see how attitudes like that leads to alienation and resentment amongst those who have had to live with the negative effects of the nations immigration policies for the last two decades? You still don’t understand how that arrogance led to us leaving the EU?

The Tories were voted in on a platform of reducing immigration and instead ramped it up and paid the price at the subsequent election. Now Starmer has cancelled the Rwanda scheme he has to politically own every boat that crosses the Channel so I hope he has a good replacement lined up otherwise anger is only going to grow.

I agree with what you say regarding immigration, it clearly is an issue for a lot of people.

Where I disagree with you is that immigrants should not be used as the reason for all the ills of the country.

My uncle was born in Norfolk but moved to London for work in the early 1950s, he lived in Luton for nearly 50 years before moving back to Norfolk two years ago. The road he lived on had a large Muslim community, by the time he moved out he was the last white person living on the road. My uncle never had any issues from the Muslim community in fact I would say they looked after him as if he was a member of the family, particularly as  he got older and his wife became ill. Our family couldn't thank them enough for what they did for him.

For me immigration is both a positive thing and a negative thing. 

Personally I think the argument needs to move away from blaming all the ills of the country on immigrants but as a decent, reasonable person I think we do need to tackle immigration head on..........

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

There seems to be an odd idea that events like this have one cause, they very rarely do and instead whilst there may be one spark the causes are many and varied.

Interesting to see which way starmer moves on this.

Does he ramp up the pressure as he did and invite accusations of hypocrisy and 'two tier policing'

Does he largely ignore it all and hope it goes away itself

Does he come out with a divide and rule the "some of have legitimate concerns that we now hear and will address but your cause has been hijacked by those who just want the thrill of the crowd and the riot"

Does he do something else?

What would you do if you were him?

I would certainly concur there isn't a single cause for the issues - indeed the tragedy in Southport was clearly the least of the issues but just an 'excuse' by right wing agitators to stir up misguided, misplaced trouble. Shame on them.

The solution is of course no knee jerk over-reactions, but the full application of the existing laws of this country. No special treatment  but just the full implementation of the criminal law. Go after and make examples of those that incite.  

What I would do however is go after the social media channels that help peddle so much hate. Anonymity can't be allowed for the worst offenders. 

If X or Meta (or Pinkun) disagree then they get sanctioned. Service (and advertising revenues) unavailable. 'Free speech' comes with responsibilities as per any publisher.

[TheGunnShow 7,072]

5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I would certainly concur there isn't a single cause for the issues - indeed the tragedy in Southport was clearly the least of the issues but just an 'excuse' by right wing agitators to stir up misguided, misplaced trouble. Shame on them.

The solution is of course no knee jerk over-reactions, but the full application of the existing laws of this country. No special treatment  but just the full implementation of the criminal law. Go after and make examples of those that incite.  

What I would do however is go after the social media channels that help peddle so much hate. Anonymity can't be allowed for the worst offenders. 

If X or Meta (or Pinkun) disagree then they get sanctioned. Service (and advertising revenues) unavailable. 'Free speech' comes with responsibilities as per any publisher.

Exactly, rioters are to blame for riots but they're merely a symptom. A lot of the fake news being spread around is much more of a root cause.

Sure, there's also something to be said to look at our education system - Finland in particular is known for having an excellent model and their population is rather more resistant to fake news than most others. I think @Barbe bleu said something about critical thinking being naturally part of some lessons, particularly history, and you'd think that would be the place to implement it.

I've said before I think Sophie's World should be compulsory reading at GCSE - literally a primer of Western thought distilled into a mystery story so those who claim to be "defending" Western culture might be a bit more acquainted with what they really are defending.

[ricardo 7,820]

24 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

So what should starmer do?

Stand at a lecture flanked by Union Jack's and label those who disagree with him as far right.

Seems to work for some.

[Fen Canary 1,334]

20 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

I agree with what you say regarding immigration, it clearly is an issue for a lot of people.

Where I disagree with you is that immigrants should not be used as the reason for all the ills of the country.

My uncle was born in Norfolk but moved to London for work in the early 1950s, he lived in Luton for nearly 50 years before moving back to Norfolk two years ago. The road he lived on had a large Muslim community, by the time he moved out he was the last white person living on the road. My uncle never had any issues from the Muslim community in fact I would say they looked after him as if he was a member of the family, particularly as  he got older and his wife became ill. Our family couldn't thank them enough for what they did for him.

For me immigration is both a positive thing and a negative thing. 

Personally I think the argument needs to move away from blaming all the ills of the country on immigrants but as a decent, reasonable person I think we do need to tackle immigration head on..........

I agree, I’ve never blamed the immigrants themselves despite me being fairly anti immigration, as in their shoes I’d have done exactly the same thing. Immigration when done correctly can also be a great benefit to a nation, however I don’t think that’s been the case with our levels of it for a long time unfortunately.

However the problem lies when the major parties either won’t discuss it (Labour) or pay lip service to it while doing the opposite (Tories). If the centre parties leave a vacuum then it will be gladly filled by those closer to the fringes, and if the electorate get sick of having their concerns ignored they’re eventually going to move to the outliers as we’re seeing on the continent 

[Fen Canary 1,334]

16 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly, rioters are to blame for riots but they're merely a symptom. A lot of the fake news being spread around is much more of a root cause.

Sure, there's also something to be said to look at our education system - Finland in particular is known for having an excellent model and their population is rather more resistant to fake news than most others. I think @Barbe bleu said something about critical thinking being naturally part of some lessons, particularly history, and you'd think that would be the place to implement it.

I've said before I think Sophie's World should be compulsory reading at GCSE - literally a primer of Western thought distilled into a mystery story so those who claim to be "defending" Western culture might be a bit more acquainted with what they really are defending.

Finlands population is also much more homogeneous and less violent. There’s no big stories or tensions for misinformation to gain a foothold 

[Herman 10,898]

6 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Stand at a lecture flanked by Union Jack's and label those who disagree with him as far right.

Seems to work for some.

Maybe a bit of dog whistling, flanked by multiple union jacks, citing legitimate concerns. 

Works for some. 

[TheGunnShow 7,072]

10 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Finlands population is also much more homogeneous and less violent. There’s no big stories or tensions for misinformation to gain a foothold 

How much more homogeneous is "much more homogeneous"? Also, don't forget that Finns have a long border with Russia and has rapidly become much less homogeneous over the last couple of decades - not to mention there's always been a not inconsiderable Swedish-speaking minority there for a century or longer.

Finland’s secret weapon in the fight against fake news: its kindergarten children (telegraph.co.uk)

How Finnish schools teach every child to spot fake news - and what UK parents could learn from them (inews.co.uk)

How to fight fake news like they do it in Finland All Things Nordic (if the other two end up behind a paywall, then this will have to do).

Finland's population is much more spread out too. I suspect there's a fair link between violent outbreaks and population density. Easier to be hacked off if you're living cheek-by-jowl.

Edited August 3 by TheGunnShow

[sonyc 6,048]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

No - that graph doesn’t tell us anything about people feeling marginalised. That’s a conclusion you’ve jumped too far to reach.

All it shows is that a majority of people think immigration could be lower - where is the column for “and I am angry, feel ignored and marginalised as a result of my views” ? 

When you vote for a party, you accept not every one of their policies is going to align exactly with yours. If immigration is so important to the majority - to the extent they feel ignored, marginalised and want to start rioting - then I’m shocked that only fourteen percent voted Reform. The majority you mention had an anti-immigration vote option and didn’t take it. 

That rather suggests the majority don’t feel marginalised or upset or angry about immigration. The majority might think it should be lower - but it’s no different to the government doing something different to their views on the economy, housing, foreign policy, education, benefits, etc.  That’s not marginalising people, it’s how democracy works. 

The riots - again I think you’re jumping a little far to use those as an example of lots of people feeling marginalised. People are looting shops - what has that got to do with immigration? People are attacking the police - what’s that got to do with immigration? People are attacking mosques - that’s religiously motivated, not wider immigration. And it’s hardly a significant majority - 8 people were arrested in Sunderland. I’m sure there were a few more there, but we’re not even talking about a small percentage of the population - it’s below tiny. A handful of yobs, many of whom I suspect would have joined in for any reason. 

As to Rwanda and the Tories, the Tories made a big deal about trying to lower immigration. They might not have been very good at it, which is presumably why a whole fourteen percent of the population voted for Reform instead. But it’s a bit ridiculous imo to say the Tories dismissed concerns about immigration out of hand and people have been ignored on the subject.

It’s also a bit ridiculous to blame the Tories’ failure to do anything about immigration on other unelected groups and the next government. Starmer “canning” a scheme of his predecessors isn’t marginalising a group - it’s literally what happens after every election. If people don’t like it, suck it up to the next election and then vote differently.

As to brexit, all the polls show the brexit vote would be different if it was happening again/now and that many who voted leave regret doing so. What you seem to be saying is a majority who now don’t support brexit should shut up, but a minority who feel marginalised about immigration should be given more attention. A strange stance.

 

 

I tried to engage Natural Cynic last night because he regularly posts about these things and he has said that the riots were "understandable". But I didn't get any answers to this, just comments suggesting I "knew very well".  I don't so I spent a good couple of hours late last night (and then this morning) looking up for sources on why people feel moved to riot and feel such hatred. After all, these riots are not one community in conflict with itself. The rioting has not originated because of conflict between different factions. These riots have been people often travelling distances.

My interest is actually less about nationalism or sexism, colonialism or even racism. I'm mainly interested in what part emotion plays in hate riots. So, bear with me if I post some of the research I've read (it's scientific and sociological so is not coloured by any political opinion). It could be a longish post but I will attempt short paragraphs. Then perhaps give some of my own reflections briefly at the end. The following points are not my views but from researched articles (1965 to 2003 and then two others 2011 and 2014). The articles do not provide a rationale for hatred or rioting but attempt to understand previous riots (post hoc introspection).

* Hate is an emotional response to disturbing and unbearable anxiety and fear

* Riots can cover over or mitigate the vulnerability and psychological pain (more on this to follow)

* Rioting can be a protective strategy in response to feeling alienated (which is unconscious). And that  even applies to the same people who are able to show love and care for others

* There is a degree of excitement in rioting and it can be pleasurable to have 'moments of being out of control'

* Hateful emotions are not private matters alone. They do not necessarily originate within and then move outwards but hate is 'circulated' and mobilise amongst others. There is even an intimacy connected to a social identification with a group

* There are often ideas of a shared problem and that collective action can disrupt or change things

* Feelings of hate can become fixed when they change from an emotional response to feelings of identity. A feeling in a group, a belonging intensifies.

* Masculinity and what it means to men is another factor. Some (most?) men repress their feminine side within but without, it becomes the idea of nation, the national story. Repression is displaced as terror and hate and takes extreme form in gay bashing, ethnic violence or against institutions (police etc).

* Hate as an emotion can be a defence, a temporary protective mechanism that can dissolve into something less visceral but it can become lethal (the Southport killer?)

* To feel a hate can be a strategy to prevent collapse of the self, it soothes feelings of rejection felt, misrecognition and abandonment (back to the first bullet point)

* Earlier studies would always reference the relative deprivation theory (RDT) which tries to explain that some people perceive a difference between what they have and what they feel they deserve. They therefore feel deprived. As this disparity grows so do feelings of resentment and fear 

* RDT has been criticised though because many deprived neighbourhoods are not more riotous

* RD is however associated with a willingness to join protests or support them or endorse them

* Lower socioeconomic status is a factor but there are few studies

* Social identification is a big part of rioting and linked with feeling treated unfairly

* Boredom can play a part and rioters often do not act rationally

* Feelings of unfairness extends to many communities - particularly the black / ethnic minority population but some white communities feel they have less voice. There is a sense of abandonment.

* Hate extends towards those on the left or belong to the establishment for whom those who feel abandoned. They feel belittled and labelled (far right, extremists and so on). 

 

Anyway, that's a summary of what I've read so far. It was wrong of me to ask NC because he is a defensive sort and I misjudged that, even though I felt I asked very politely and offered qualifications.

Thanks to @PurpleCanaryand @Fen Canaryand @Well b back because it was good to read some thoughts. But I also think about @Barbe bleu's comments about the language we use at times. We react as we do but sometimes if others feel very 'got at' they take it very personally and become ever more entrenched. 

As stated, I've been attempting to understand why someone like that protester, the 39 year old dad who got a brick in his spuds, should decide to travel for an hour or so, behave like he did, risk conviction, possibly a criminal record and then possibly losing work as a result, not to mention how his actions affect his close family and children. He must either be a fool or he is a very desperate person, or utterly bereft in life? The same for folk who attack the police or burn down citizens advice centres (presumably all workers are 'lefties' and are trying to help people they disagree with). We can speculate all we like on the causes but the answers surely lie with each individual?

I agree too that different communities can help in helping people understand each other @littleyellowbirdie's point. I see that a Liverpool mosque is opening its doors to anyone to come and talk. In Bradford there's been a curry club every week for well over a decade. They serve curries for free to everyone (mostly local white people). 

I feel these things are going to continue for a good while. To paint the new Labour government as the cause is very misguided. The last 14 years have not been great in helping the country become more tolerant and understanding. Quite the opposite. And Farage claims to speak for groups of people but needs to back that up with a statesmanship that I don't think he possesses. He needs not to fan the flames because he has quite an influence, especially when a sizeable minority of people feel so disenfranchised.

 

 

Edited August 3 by sonyc

[A Load of Squit 6,030]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

How much more homogeneous is "much more homogeneous"? Also, don't forget that Finns have a long border with Russia and has rapidly become much less homogeneous over the last couple of decades - not to mention there's always been a not inconsiderable Swedish-speaking minority there for a century or longer.

Finland’s secret weapon in the fight against fake news: its kindergarten children (telegraph.co.uk)

How Finnish schools teach every child to spot fake news - and what UK parents could learn from them (inews.co.uk)

How to fight fake news like they do it in Finland All Things Nordic (if the other two end up behind a paywall, then this will have to do).

Finland's population is much more spread out too. I suspect there's a fair link between violent outbreaks and population density. Easier to be hacked off if you're living cheek-by-jowl.

On my last visit to Finland I got the bus from Kokkola to Pietarsaari. When I arrived I had left Karleby and arrived in Jakobstad.

Turning up in the next town and being told it's a Swedish speaking town was very confusing especially as I called a local person Swedish but they said they were Finnish, they just spoke Swedish all the time.

 

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

21 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Stand at a lecture flanked by Union Jack's and label those who disagree with him as far right.

Seems to work for some.

 

13 minutes ago, Herman said:

Maybe a bit of dog whistling, flanked by multiple union jacks, citing legitimate concerns. 

Works for some. 

So far SKS has done exactly what he should and as the vast majority of the country would expect as PM.

Only the rioters and their apologists or sympathizers on the far right could think otherwise. And yes the inciters of this violence are clearly opportunistic far right.

 

[Yellow Fever 4,310]

21 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I tried to engage Natural Cynic last night because he regularly posts about these things and he has said that the riots were "understandable". But I didn't get any answers to this, just comments suggesting I "knew very well".  I don't so I spent a good couple of hours late last night (and then this morning) looking up for sources on why people feel moved to riot and feel such hatred. After all, these riots are not one community in conflict with itself. The rioting has not originated because of conflict between different factions. These riots have been people often travelling distances.

My interest is actually less about nationalism or sexism, colonialism or even racism. I'm mainly interested in what part emotion plays in hate riots. So, bear with me if I post some of the research I've read (it's scientific and sociological so is not coloured by any political opinion). It could be a longish post but I will attempt short paragraphs. Then perhaps give some of my own reflections briefly at the end. The following points are not my views but from researched articles (1965 to 2003 and then two others 2011 and 2014). The articles do not provide a rationale for hatred or rioting but attempt to understand previous riots (many having racial elements):

* Hate is an emotional response to disturbing and unbearable anxiety and fear

* Riots can cover over or mitigate the vulnerability and psychological pain (more on this to follow)

* Rioting can be a protective strategy in response to feeling alienated (which is unconscious). And that is even the first the same people who can show love and care for others

* There is a degree of excitement in rioting and it can be pleasurable to have 'moments of being out of control'

* Hateful emotions are not private matters alone. They do not necessarily originate within and then move outwards but hate is 'circulated' and mobilise amongst others. There is even an intimacy connected to a social identification with a group

* There are often ideas of a shared problem and that collective action can disrupt or change things

* Feelings of hate can become fixed when they change from an emotional response to feelings of identity. A feeling in a group, a belonging intensifies.

* Masculinity and what it means to mention is another factor. Some (most?) men repress their feminine side within but without, it becomes the idea of nation, the national story. Repression is displaced as terror and hate and takes extreme form in gay bashing, ethnic violence or against institutions (police etc).

* Hate as an emotion can be a defence, a temporary protective mechanism that can dissolve into something less visceral but it can become lethal (the Southport killer?)

* To feel a hate can be a strategy to prevent collapse of the self, it soothes feelings of rejection felt, misrecognition and abandonment (back to the first bullet point)

* Earlier studies would always reference the relative deprivation theory (RDT) which tries to explain that some people perceive a difference between what they have and what they feel they deserve. They therefore feel deprived. As this disparity grows so do feelings of resentment and fear 

* RDT has been criticised though because many deprived neighbourhoods are not more riotous

* RD is however associated with a willingness to join protests or support them or endorse them

* Lower socioeconomic status is a factor but there are few studies

* Social identification is a big part of rioting and linked with feeling treated unfairly

* Boredom can play a part and rioters often do not act rationally

* Feelings of unfairness extends to many communities - particularly the black / ethnic minority population but some white communities feel they have less voice. There is a sense of abandonment.

* Hate extends towards those on the left or belong to the establishment for whom those who feel abandoned. They feel belittled and labelled (far right, extremists and so on). 

 

Anyway, that's a summary of what I've read so far. It was wrong of me to ask NC because he is a defensive sort and I misjudged that, even though I felt I asked very politely and offered qualifications.

Thanks to @PurpleCanaryand @Fen Canaryand @Well b back because it was good to read some thoughts. But I also think about @Barbe bleu's comments about the language we use at times. We react as we do but sometimes if others feel very 'got at' they take it very personally and become ever more entrenched. 

As stated, I've been attempting to understand why someone like that protester, the 39 year old dad who got a brick in his spuds, should decide to travel for an hour or so, behave like he did, risk conviction, possibly a criminal record and then possibly losing work as a result, not to mention how his actions affect his close family and children. He must either be a fool or he is a very desperate person, or utterly bereft in life? The same for folk who attack the police or burn down citizens advice centres (presumably all workers are 'lefties' and are trying to help people they disagree with). We can speculate all we like on the causes but the answers surely lie with each individual?

I agree too that different communities can help in helping people understand each other @littleyellowbirdie's point. I see that a Liverpool mosque is opening its doors to anyone to come and talk. In Bradford there's been a curry club every week for well over a decade. They serve curries for free to everyone (mostly local white people). 

I feel these things are going to continue for a good while. To paint the new Labour government as the cause is very misguided. The last 14 years have not been great in helping the country become more tolerant and understanding. Quite the opposite. And Farage claims to speak for groups of people but needs to back that up with a statesmanship that I don't think he possesses. He needs not to fan the flames because he has quite an influence, especially when a sizeable minority of people feel so disenfranchised.

 

 

The trouble is SC is that those (like yourself) that try to understand and mitigate these emotions and prejudices in ourselves (and yes we all have them - my inner emotional self may have quite liked the police to play a bit of football with the rioters heads.. but then my rational civilized part takes charge) don't really need the 'answers' beyond trying to help and understand these communities and issues. However, we get labelled 'lefties' by them for not agreeing with their simple self-deceiving answers. 

Those that really do need the 'answers' you give are generally way beyond having the wit to understand or act upon them it seems.

Edited August 3 by Yellow Fever

[Naturalcynic 817]

On 03/08/2024 at 11:52, sonyc said:

I tried to engage Natural Cynic last night because he regularly posts about these things and he has said that the riots were "understandable". But I didn't get any answers to this, just comments suggesting I "knew very well".

 

That’s claptrap.  I have never said that riots were understandable.    What I have said is that outrage at recent events is understandable.  Not the same thing at all.

Edited August 12 by Naturalcynic

[TheGunnShow 7,072]

22 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

On my last visit to Finland I got the bus from Kokkola to Pietarsaari. When I arrived I had left Karleby and arrived in Jakobstad.

Turning up in the next town and being told it's a Swedish speaking town was very confusing especially as I called a local person Swedish but they said they were Finnish, they just spoke Swedish all the time.

 

Pretty sure you'd not get that response in the Åland Islands but yeah, that western part of Finland has always had its fair share of Swedish speakers.

[Aggy 931]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

So despite a majority saying they want immigration reduced, immigration being labelled a top 3 concern just behind the economy and health service by the electorate and a single issue party in its first election (in a FPTP system that makes it much harder for smaller parties) coming in third place, you don’t think that immigration is a subject worth discussing? You say that only14% voted for the most anti immigration party, but tell me which parties campaigned on increasing immigration or letting in more illegal immigrants and asylum seekers in the last 20 years, and how many votes did they receive? 

You genuinely can’t see how attitudes like that leads to alienation and resentment amongst those who have had to live with the negative effects of the nations immigration policies for the last two decades? You still don’t understand how that arrogance led to us leaving the EU?

The Tories were voted in on a platform of reducing immigration and instead ramped it up and paid the price at the subsequent election. Now Starmer has cancelled the Rwanda scheme he has to politically own every boat that crosses the Channel so I hope he has a good replacement lined up otherwise anger is only going to grow.

Where did I say it wasn’t worth discussing? I’ve made a number of posts discussing it. 

None of the points you’ve made deal with the points I’ve actually made.

[ron obvious 1,644]

Another excellent (& relevant) article in Unherd today:

 

https://unherd.com/?p=613831?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&utm_source=UnHerd+Today&utm_campaign=d14cc045b8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_08_02_02_50&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_79fd0df946-d14cc045b8-[LIST_EMAIL_ID]

[Barbe bleu 989]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

He should have had the same reaction for all of them, the current ones, Harehills and Tower Hamlets. Bit late for that now though 

As you say, its a bit latr for that.  He's opened himself up to criticisms of hypocrisy and one-sidedness that have added fuel to the fire but does he go all in or pull back?