this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
13 points (93.3% liked)

UK Politics

3562 readers
109 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DWin@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"A riot is the language of the unheard" - Martin Luther King Jr

[–] ciwolsey@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

If you believe violent rioting against people already seeking asylum is an ethical way to be heard then I, and the majority of this country are happy for you to be silenced behind bars.

[–] DWin@feddit.uk 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That's an extremely bad faith interpretation of what I said. It's the exact opposite of what I'm saying, and I'm unsure if this is an elaborate troll/gotcha, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant no ill-will.

My entire point is that focusing on the symptom, in this case the the rioting and the racism, is short sighted and is prone to create reactionary takes that dismiss the concerns that lie beneath. That dismissal will only further antagonize and drive people further towards populist movements, and I don't think that's the smart thing to do. We should not be driving people towards these movements, but rather offering them a tangible and real way to alleviate the root cause of their discontent, catch it before a populist preys upon it.

[–] ciwolsey@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Preys upon them? They're people not deer. Every time you speak you frame them as victims. Nobody forced them to violently riot, they're individually and collectively reprehensible. Violent rioting is not the way to encourage people to listen to you.

[–] DWin@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

I don't think it's a controversial take to say that people who are struggling are easy prey for extremist ideology. I can happily link a handful of articles that describe why those in lower economic positions tend to be easily swayed to populist right wing ideas. And I absolutely do see them as victims, I see most people as victims in some way shape or form. After WW2 we had an extremely wide distribution of wealth, the lower classes had homes and some core assets, the middle class had one or more homes and some luxuries, and the upper class had additional land and the best of the best. Over time the ability to get even meager assets has become harder and harder, to the point where the lower class has almost no assets to speak of, and what little the middle class has left is draining directly to the ultra-wealthy. We are all victims of circumstance in this manor, and the system is failing to address this.

I strongly disagree with the focus on individualism, especially when we're dealing with large groups of people. On a case by case basis, sure, at the end of the day someone may make a conscious choice to engage with something, but to only hyper-focus on that while disregarding the view from only a few steps back? That's the naive bit. I can find their views reprehensible and look at their choices with disdain, but I don't think that should be the end of the analysis.

I do not advocate for violent rioting, but to say it doesn't encourage people to listen to you I think is just wrong. Look back through history, the Civil Rights movement was nonviolent at its core but the presence of the Black Panther Party utilized armed self-defence to keep the police at bay, the threat of violence was the deterrent. The stonewall riots where queer individuals resisting police brutality sparked the birth of the pride movement, it was only the retaliation against the arrests and beatings the police performed that allowed for gay rights to no longer be ignored. The Suffragette movement in the UK set fire to post boxes and sabotaged local businesses. Even more blatant examples like the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa led by Nelson Mandela, although again like the Civil Rights movement was at its core non-violent, they didn't renounce any of the violence until negotiations were well underway.

So violence is absolutely a tool in a huge number of successful political movements. This is why I think we should be careful about dismissing it, and rather than just shunning them, forcing them deeper into their hatred, we should unify against a common target that would benefit all, and that is the ultra-wealthy that keep us divided on these lines. If we can't unite on common ground, then I don't think we'll ever see change, we'll just be kept in a state of hating each other as our quality of living slowly deteriorates.