The Normalisation of Deviance

[the_bloke 17]

It is legitimate to say that not all voters for Trump, Farage and Brexit are racist.

 

However, because the terms racist/racism have been over-zealously applied by some throughout the recent political upheaval, are we in danger of not using it when it is accurate and necessary?

 

Are we at risk of sitting by and letting a highly dangerous normalisation of deviance take place?

 

No. It's being over used and applied to too many scenarios as it is; it seems any disagreement between people from different cultures or have differing skin tones has the race label slapped upon it by someone, usually a third party SJW.

 

It's overuse has become a parody sometimes, even on SF. It's now a vehicle for humour to call someone racist for making a totally innocuous comment like 'I don't like the black Jelly Babies'.

 

It's wrong in my opinion; calling someone out as being racist should be a serious accusation and not to be used lightly nor without proof based upon their actions and words, nor should it be a label that only gets given to white people.

 

Normalisation of deviance? Watering down of the meaning of words with negative connotations more like. See 'I'll kill you' said in jest when your mate tries to take your last Malteser.

[mikem8634 10]

I don't support Trump.

 

Just because I didn't support Hillary Clinton either, it doesn't necessarily follow that I support Trump.

 

Fair enough, it wasn't just directed at you, but did you factor in the close ties to neo-nazism when you said this?

-

Didn't see Trumps victory speech, but I believe he is the ultimate pragmatist. Not a single principle in that blond head of his that he won't be willing to change when it suits.

 

He's a deal maker, and a fresh pair of eyes. Maybe, (just maybe...) that's what is required at present.

I suspect not and I would argue that whilst he has publicly disavowed links to the so-called alt-right, the appointment of Bannon sends a much stronger message than the word of a man well known for not keeping his word. Shouldn't that be enough for concluding that there are no circumstances in which Trump may be 'what is required'?

 

I was working recently and a group of young lads who were on a youth training programme (bad lads class let's call it) were working close to me but couldn't see me around the corner, these lads were 18-21 I'd say I think they were 3 possibly 4 of them, 2 were white 1 was black not sure if another was lurking around of any colour. Anyway I was earwigging them and they were whinging about the work they'd been to do and then proceeded to moan about their supervisor, the black lad said much to the amusement of the 2 white lads that this supervisor was racist his tone of voice was serious one of the white lads asked why and the black lad said it's the way he talks to me and (insert another black lads name) one of the white lads said that's how he talks to everyone and the second white lad encouraged him to accuse the supervisor of racism as it would "sort him out"

 

I'm not sure who the supervisor was he might've been racist and blatant at that but from the white lads saying that's how he talks to everyone my guess is he's not, this is a serious predicament, if this supervisor gets reported disciplinary action will be taken maybe suspension all because of the R word being freely banded about and companies don't want to be accused of harbouring a racist.

 

It is entirely dependent on where the evidence leads. As I stated explicitly in my first post, I do not deny that it is used incorrectly, my concern is that we stop using it when it is accurate and necessary and give genuine racists a free pass to normalise their behaviour.

 

But how do you identify a racist, do they tell you that they believe their race is superior to anther race, or do you assume that that is their belief based on what they say or do?

 

 

How do we overcome the problem of someone being called a xenophobe, racist or Islamophobe when they challenge racism or deviant behavior?

 

Evidence.

 

What would someone have to say or do to give you the assumption they believe their race to be superior to another?

 

Say and do things that communicated it. What would someone have to do for you to conclude they were a racist? Probably the same as me. My guess is you are assuming that I have some kind of hair trigger and am keen to label everyone and anyone a racist at the earliest possible opportunity. I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying do not stop using it when it is accurate and necessary, and for that there must be evidence. For example, Richard Spencer is not an alt-right firebrand, he is a racist neo-nazi. The former description is normalising deviance, the latter is accurate and necessary.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 11:20 ----------

 

No. It's being over used and applied to too many scenarios as it is; it seems any disagreement between people from different cultures or have differing skin tones has the race label slapped upon it by someone, usually a third party SJW.

 

It's overuse has become a parody sometimes, even on SF. It's now a vehicle for humour to call someone racist for making a totally innocuous comment like 'I don't like the black Jelly Babies'.

 

It's wrong in my opinion; calling someone out as being racist should be a serious accusation and not to be used lightly nor without proof based upon their actions and words, nor should it be a label that only gets given to white people.

 

Normalisation of deviance? Watering down of the meaning of words with negative connotations more like. See 'I'll kill you' said in jest when your mate tries to take your last Malteser.

 

Why did you start off with no, and then go on to, in principle, agree with me?

 

Your use of dismissive buzzwords like SJW is disappointing. At no point has anyone suggested that racism is only perpetrated by white people. I also don't know if your Jelly Baby point is genuine or fictional but, either way, it contradicts nothing I have said.

 

My point, as clearly stated in the first post, is that not using the term when it is accurate and necessary, because it has been diluted by over-zealous use, contributes to the normalisation of racism, because it is not being called out when it should be.

 

I am not arguing for the term to be used more frequently. I am arguing for it to be used more accurately, because it is an important tool in combatting racism.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 11:27 ----------

 

By their words and their deeds.

 

Exactly, spot on.

Edited November 25, 2016 by mikem8634

[the_bloke 17]

FWhy did you start off with no, and then go on to, in principle, agree with me?

 

Your use of dismissive buzzwords like SJW is disappointing. At no point has anyone suggested that racism is only perpetrated by white people. I also don't know if your Jelly Baby point is genuine or fictional but, either way, it contradicts nothing I have said.

 

My point, as clearly stated in the first post, is that not using the term when it is accurate and necessary, because it has been diluted by over-zealous use, contributes to the normalisation of racism, because it is not being called out when it should be.

 

I am not arguing for the term to be used more frequently. I am arguing for it to be used more accurately, because it is an important tool in combatting racism.

 

You asked if we are in danger of not using it when accurate, and no, we are not in danger. I don't see it not being used in the correct circumstance, but I did go on to explain how it is also used in the wrong circumstance.

[El Cid 212]

We seem to have normalised politicians telling lies and not keeping their promises. The media didnt let Clegg get away with it, but the Tories seem to be able to promise anything without being chanlanged when their promise is not kept.

[Petminder 10]

Fair enough, it wasn't just directed at you, but did you factor in the close ties to neo-nazism when you said this?

-

I suspect not and I would argue that whilst he has publicly disavowed links to the so-called alt-right, the appointment of Bannon sends a much stronger message than the word of a man well known for not keeping his word. Shouldn't that be enough for concluding that there are no circumstances in which Trump may be 'what is required'?

 

 

 

It is entirely dependent on where the evidence leads. As I stated explicitly in my first post, I do not deny that it is used incorrectly, my concern is that we stop using it when it is accurate and necessary and give genuine racists a free pass to normalise their behaviour.

 

 

 

Evidence.

 

 

 

Say and do things that communicated it. What would someone have to do for you to conclude they were a racist? Probably the same as me. My guess is you are assuming that I have some kind of hair trigger and am keen to label everyone and anyone a racist at the earliest possible opportunity. I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying do not stop using it when it is accurate and necessary, and for that there must be evidence. For example, Richard Spencer is not an alt-right firebrand, he is a racist neo-nazi. The former description is normalising deviance, the latter is accurate and necessary.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 11:20 ----------

 

 

Why did you start off with no, and then go on to, in principle, agree with me?

 

Your use of dismissive buzzwords like SJW is disappointing. At no point has anyone suggested that racism is only perpetrated by white people. I also don't know if your Jelly Baby point is genuine or fictional but, either way, it contradicts nothing I have said.

 

My point, as clearly stated in the first post, is that not using the term when it is accurate and necessary, because it has been diluted by over-zealous use, contributes to the normalisation of racism, because it is not being called out when it should be.

 

I am not arguing for the term to be used more frequently. I am arguing for it to be used more accurately, because it is an important tool in combatting racism.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 11:27 ----------

 

 

Exactly, spot on.

 

If someone says they don't want immigration because they don't like foreigners would that lead you to believe that they believe themselves and their race to be superior to other races.

[El Cid 212]

If someone says they don't want immigration because they don't like foreigners would that lead you to believe that they believe themselves and their race to be superior to other races.

 

They might just resent people that have not paid money into the HMRC, coming over here and making their life harder.

[mikem8634 10]

You asked if we are in danger of not using it when accurate, and no, we are not in danger. I don't see it not being used in the correct circumstance, but I did go on to explain how it is also used in the wrong circumstance.

 

Fair enough, I mis-read it as general rejection of the point, but now see you were answering the specific question.

 

If someone says they don't want immigration because they don't like foreigners would that lead you to believe that they believe themselves and their race to be superior to other races.

 

No, not in isolation. They would certainly be espousing a xenophobic point of view but they would not have made a specific declaration of racial supremacy. I would consider racism possible but not definitive without more evidence.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 13:05 ----------

 

They might just resent people that have not paid money into the HMRC, coming over here and making their life harder.

 

And if they did I would endeavour to explain that poor people do not have the power to dictate the economic circumstances of other poor people.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 13:06 ----------

 

We seem to have normalised politicians telling lies and not keeping their promises. The media didnt let Clegg get away with it, but the Tories seem to be able to promise anything without being chanlanged when their promise is not kept.

 

Exactly. And it has been turbocharged in relation to Brexit and Trump.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

I have had a read of this topic, but I have to admit it's way over my head,

 

Angel1.

[Petminder 10]

No, not in isolation. They would certainly be espousing a xenophobic point of view but they would not have made a specific declaration of racial supremacy. I would consider racism possible but not definitive without more evidence.

 

Xenophobia is the irrational fear of foreigners, not liking them isn't xenophobic. Do you think an Iraqi would be xenophobic if they didn't like the British or feared the British?

[mikem8634 10]

I have had a read of this topic, but I have to admit it's way over my head,

 

Angel1.

 

I am concerned that racism could be made normal. Partly because people may not want to call it out due to thinking the term has been used wrongly and/or too much.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 14:53 ----------

 

Does anybody have an explanation or justification for The Daily Mail putting Thomas Mair's conviction and sentencing on page 30 that doesn'tmake them look very bad?

 

All I can come up with is a combination of the following elements -

 

embarrassment

complicity

ideological protection

ideological normalisation

shame

indifference

hypocrisy

dishonesty

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 16:14 ----------

 

Owen Jones today, making many of the same points I am trying to raise.

 

 

Whether you like him or not, is he wrong here?

Edited November 25, 2016 by mikem8634

[Margarita Ma 10]

It is legitimate to say that not all voters for Trump, Farage and Brexit are racist.

 

However, because the terms racist/racism have been over-zealously applied by some throughout the recent political upheaval, are we in danger of not using it when it is accurate and necessary?

 

Are we at risk of sitting by and letting a highly dangerous normalisation of deviance take place?

 

 

For reference - The normalization of deviance is defined as: “The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behaviour is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization."

 

Do you mean as in the Rotherham Abuse scandal and forced marriage etc. ?

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 21:30 ----------

 

too true, not sliding away from a topic

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 01:57 ----------

 

 

just a min you suggesting that their life meant any less

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 02:03 ----------

 

im suggesting that a guy that liked to collect medal from the second world war and was a fantasist who was somewhat mentally unstable did a terrible thing.

 

And I would suggest that a person who puts profit and watching the football above the lives of workers is despicable, but then I am biased, my husband died of Mesothelioma(asbestosis) as many others have and will because people put their own comfort and profit above the lives of others.

But what has this to do with deviation.

Most people that I know are horrified at the thought of Donald Trump as President of the USA. I think he never expected to win, unfortunately the population in the USA is as demoralised and disenchanted as here and many did not vote, as happens here too. The Rednecks who want to be able to gun tote and cuss at people in the street turned out for him and the FBI for some unknown reason (but I'll give you three guesses) put the boot in at the last minute before withdrawing it at the last second without even saying sorry were were wrong to do so.

Anyway we deviate don't we? I thought the topic was the Normalisation of Deviance. So Normalisation of American Spelling on Computers that are supposed to be set to English is Normalisation of Deviation as many people accept it. Personally I think it is evil as I was brought up in an era that followed the Oxford dictionary for spelling.

Other things are more evil though.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 21:34 ----------

 

Are we talking about deviation or about Racism Elitism and and its definitions. . the tendency to call people racist when they raise a complaint about someone or something. The changing of meanings through time because of the acceptance of a deviance from its original meaning or what? we seem to have slipped from one thing to another to another.

in other words deviated.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 21:46 ----------

 

No, it is happening in relation to the lie propagated by several key political figures that the problems of a group of economically-disadvantaged people who have been cut adrift by the political policy-making that has brought about globalisation, can be blamed upon a different group of equally economically-disadvantaged people who are slightly different from them.

 

That lie was started by Farage and Trump, and it has since become socially-acceptable to scapegoat other those who are different. That is shifting the Overton Window in a negative direction.

 

The next phase of that appears to be taking shape in the rebranding of Neo-Nazis as Alt-Right (a nicely sanitised term) with Richard Spencer dressed like a hipster whilst delivering dangerous, deluded and hateful rhetoric.

https://news.vice.com/story/watch-richard-spencer-rally-the-alt-right-america-is-white-peoples-creation

 

Richard Spencer is a Neo-Nazi and has been mentored and praised by Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's chief strategist.

 

If you support Trump then you are partially aligning yourself with the normalisation of Neo-Nazism.

 

Are you aware of that?

 

Are you okay with that?

 

Actually the blame game started well before Farage (translated means Fash as in rough edges to be smoothed off) and Trump entered Politics. The Tories have blamed the poor for their own poverty since inception. I expect the same has happened in the USA. and the poor have had it up to their necks. some will run and hide some will be too depressed or ill to movesome will stand up and shout for the person leading the fight and some will be pushed over the edge and do terrible things. I am not saying it is right just that this is what is happening with the vote and politics.

[mikem8634 10]

Do you mean as in the Rotherham Abuse scandal and forced marriage etc. ?

 

In what sense exactly?

 

Are we talking about deviation or about Racism Elitism and and its definitions. . the tendency to call people racist when they raise a complaint about someone or something. The changing of meanings through time because of the acceptance of a deviance from its original meaning or what? we seem to have slipped from one thing to another to another.

in other words deviated.

 

Any and all, whichever way it goes.

 

Initially I was talking about the possibility of reluctance to identify racism and challenge it accordingly. I have recently encountered several claims that the Trump and Brexit results were partially fuelled by the arrogant assumption that those who voted for both of those outcomes were racist. Whether or not that is true, it presents the possibility of a backlash against using the term, which has the potential to contribute to a normalisation of racism due to allowing it to go unchallenged.

 

Semantically speaking, the term racism has indeed deviated from its original meaning of late. It has taken on the catch-all properties of group discrimination and shed the essential element of race. I understand why this has happened as race is a somewhat nebulous concept, a social construct, and there is a growing argument that the modern perception of race/racism is really more of a perception of culture, predicated on common, distinct identities and practices rather than biology.

 

 

Actually the blame game started well before Farage (translated means Fash as in rough edges to be smoothed off) and Trump entered Politics. The Tories have blamed the poor for their own poverty since inception. I expect the same has happened in the USA. and the poor have had it up to their necks. some will run and hide some will be too depressed or ill to movesome will stand up and shout for the person leading the fight and some will be pushed over the edge and do terrible things. I am not saying it is right just that this is what is happening with the vote and politics.

 

Agreed. I was specifically referring to the recent political cycle and the most recent manifestations of the issues you describe, but they do, indeed, go back much further.

 

In fact, in another thread I was asked what would you say to a white/black/Asian man that has paid taxes all his life and can't get a decent paid job because of foreign workers driving the wages down? Would you tell him to vote UKIP because they're the only party that represents him? Or would you tell him to vote labour or Tory because they've put him in that posisition and they'll sort it out?

 

My reply -

 

Off the top of my head, I would tell him to think very carefully before voting for any of the options you have suggested.

 

I would tell him that immigrants are not to blame for his difficulties and that those on the lower rungs should never turn on each other. They simply lack the power to alter, in either direction, the circumstances of each other and are used as scapegoats to divert attention from those who do wield power and consistently siphon wealth away from the areas where it is most needed.

 

That his situation has been caused by successive governments failing to invest in the infrastructure to cope with the rising population.

 

That the seeds were sown for our current political and economic climate in the de-industrialisation that occurred in the 1980's and that he is part of a social metric that was cut adrift then and has been left adrift ever since.

 

I would tell him that, for all their flaws, the only organisations that have ever attempted to stand up for the rights of ordinary workers are Trade Unions and the EU.

 

I would tell him to ponder why every major electoral decision in this country in recent years has gone the way Rupert Murdoch/Paul Dacre wanted it to so stop believing The Sun and The Daily Mail.

 

I would tell him that when doctors, teachers, and firefighters go on strike he should support them for as long as it takes.

 

I would tell him that capitalism has proven itself incapable of operating ethically and in the interests of the people and that it simply cannot regulate itself.

 

I would tell him that he has been lied to and not to be conned into thinking that people like Trump and Farage have his interests at heart when they are cut from exactly the same cloth as those who created this mess.

 

I would tell him that currently, there is no genuine political representation for him in this country.

 

Then I would remind him that none of this has been caused by immigrants. They have been thrown into this as much as he has.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 22:54 ----------

 

Xenophobia is the irrational fear of foreigners, not liking them isn't xenophobic.

 

Merriam Webster

Definition of xenophobia

 

: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

 

 

Oxford English Dictionary

xenophobia

noun

 

[mass noun] Dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries:

‘racism and xenophobia are steadily growing in Europe’

 

 

Are two definitions enough for you to accept your mistake?

 

Do you think an Iraqi would be xenophobic if they didn't like the British or feared the British?

 

Yes, xenophobic towards the British.

Edited November 25, 2016 by mikem8634