Concern for Dianne - Latest Update

[Earl Aelfheah]

If you want to know what really drives and sustains the endless press attacks on Dianne Abbott, look at the endless abuse she gets on social media. The true nature of it is not as guarded as in the Mail.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you want to know what really drives and sustains the endless press attacks on Dianne

> Abbott, look at the endless abuse she gets on social media. The true nature of it is not as

> guarded as in the Mail.

Did you just do that confirmation bias thing again?

I just did what you probably didn't do and typed both #dianneabbott and #borisjohnson into twitter search. Granted, I only went back a couple of weeks, but I saw some pretty unpleasant personal attacks on both of them. Sadly, being Twitter, I wasn't that surprised.

Interestingly, there were a number of tweets supporting Abbott and very few, if any, supporting Johnson. But given the prevailing mood of sympathy for Abbott over the past couple of weeks, perhaps that is to be expected.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If you want to know what really drives and

> sustains the endless press attacks on Dianne

> > Abbott, look at the endless abuse she gets on

> social media. The true nature of it is not as

> > guarded as in the Mail.

>

> Did you just do that confirmation bias thing

> again?

>

> I just did what you probably didn't do and typed

> both #dianneabbott and #borisjohnson into twitter

> search. Granted, I only went back a couple of

> weeks, but I saw some pretty unpleasant personal

> attacks on both of them. Sadly, being Twitter, I

> wasn't that surprised.

>

> Interestingly, there were a number of tweets

> supporting Abbott and very few, if any, supporting

> Johnson. But given the prevailing mood of

> sympathy for Abbott over the past couple of weeks,

> perhaps that is to be expected.

Sure Loz, but it's about the nature of abuse on social media. Boris wasn't being attacked because of his race or sex. To say that a black woman who has received endless attacks which are explicitly racist and sexist in nature is being attacked because of their race and sex, seems pretty straightforward to me.

When at the same time, that individual is disproportionately targeted in the media, it is reasonable to draw conclusions about the drivers / motivation. You may well not believe there is anything racist or sexist about the attacks on Dianne and so you've looked to see if Boris has also been criticised in some / any way on Twitter. I would argue that this may be a case of confirmation bias however.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You may well not believe there is anything racist or sexist about the attacks on

> Dianne and so you've looked to see if Boris has also been criticised in some / any way on Twitter.

> I would argue that this may be a case of confirmation bias however.

I think you are completely misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.

I'm not trying to say it's not racism. Nor am I trying to say it is. My point is that many people here have made the assertion - quite strongly - that it is. And without any attempt at justifying it, except to say two people were treated differently, she's black and female, he's white and male, ergo it's racist and sexist.

Especially as there is a possible similar example available - indeed almost a counter example. As I pointed out, two other people from the same two parties were treated just as differently - male Jeremy Corbyn and female Theresa May, but without an underlying belief in that sort of sexism, people have no assumptions to fall back onto and so they have actually needed to consider other possibilities.

So, in summary, I'm not saying it is or isn't sexism/racism/priveledgism (though it's interesting in its own way that you think I am). Just that no one (with the possible exception of yourself in the last post) has bothered to consider doing any wider thinking as to why the two were treated differently.

(Sadly, I can't re-find the meme I once saw of this, but it was a picture of some scientist-type with the caption of "This completely aligns with my beliefs. Obviously no further research is required.")

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> two people were treated

> differently, she's black and female, he's white

> and male, ergo it's racist and sexist.

No. She's received sustained racist and sexist abuse (both online and in 'real life') and at the same time the press have singled her out disproportionately for negative attention (compared to say, Boris). It is perfectly valid to draw a conclusion about the motivation (whether you agree or not). Your assertion that pointing to the easily demonstrated nature of online abuse against Dianne Abbot is an example of confirmation bias is what misses the point.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Because someone (Boris in this case) has also been attacked on Twitter and the nature of that abuse wasn't racist or sexist, then no abuse is racist or sexist? And you're criticising erroneous thinking in others?

[JohnL]

David Lammy now being accused of being "thick" on twitter.

He's got a first class degree and went to Harvard.

[Sue]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> David Lammy now being accused of being "thick" on

> twitter.

>

> He's got a first class degree and went to Harvard.

Do you have a link to the tweets?

[JohnL]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > David Lammy now being accused of being "thick"

> on

> > twitter.

> >

> > He's got a first class degree and went to

> Harvard.

>

>

>

> Do you have a link to the tweets?

It was this one that annoyed me - but his supporters seem to have piled in and some of the nastiest tweets removed :)

[Sue]

Oh, couldn't see an anti Lammy tweet there.

But the thread made me realise why I rarely go on Twitter :)

[Loz]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the thread made me realise why I rarely go on Twitter :)

Agreed. It really is the green, slimy scum pool of inhumanity. I have occasionally wandered onto it during Question Time and never felt better for the experience.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because someone (Boris in this case) has also been attacked on Twitter and the nature of that abuse

> wasn't racist or sexist, then no abuse is racist or sexist? And you're criticising erroneous

> thinking in others?

That might have been a very good point had I actually ever said that. But I didn't. So it wasn't.

It did make the last sentence amusingly ironic, though.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sure you didn't Loz, just as you claim that you're 'not saying it isn't racism' (are you saying it is then?). It's the corollary of your argument that Boris is also abused on twitter. You can dance around your arguements as much as you like and accuse people of bias and logical errors, but it's all quite plainly an attempt to obfuscate. The truth is that Dianne Abbot has been on the receiving end of huge amounts of racist and mysogonistic abuse for years now. I'm happy to give my view on what was driving the press hounding, what's your opinion on it?

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sure you didn't Loz, just as you claim that you're

> 'not saying it isn't racism' (are you saying it is

> then?). It's the corollary of your argument that

> Boris is also abused on twitter. You can dance

> around your arguements as much as you like and

> accuse people of bias and logical errors, but it's

> all quite plainly an attempt to obfuscate. The

> truth is that Dianne Abbot has been on the

> receiving end of huge amounts of racist and

> mysogonistic abuse for years now. I'm happy to

> give my view on what was driving the press

> hounding, what's your opinion on it?

How does that explanation justify your claim that "Because someone (Boris in this case) has also been attacked on Twitter and the nature of that abuse wasn't racist or sexist, then no abuse is racist or sexist?"

That's quite a specific allegation. And an extraordinary vague justification. You're usually quite a whizz at quoting people. Yet you've failed to quote here. Coincidence? I think not.

You're usually a competent debater, rah. Have you really descended to making stuff up?

[JohnL]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh, couldn't see an anti Lammy tweet there.

>

> But the thread made me realise why I rarely go on

> Twitter :)

The one that annoyed me was deleted (it implied he was stupid because of his colour)

[JohnL]

Twitter is the social media tool for people who like to talk but don't listen. So can be rather funny - as it's difficult to get into an argument when everybody is just shouting out.

Hey, rather like that leaders TV debate :)

Edit: I use it mostly for football and rugby gossip.