The Normalisation of Deviance

[Margarita Ma 10]

Does anyone listen to More or Less on Radio4

It very often examines, in depth, statistics that are quoted in the press, pulling them apart to show how the numbers have been arrived at.

Very interesting listening and a good example of critical evaluation.

[*_ash_* 88]

Does anyone listen to More or Less on Radio4

It very often examines, in depth, statistics that are quoted in the press, pulling them apart to show how the numbers have been arrived at.

Very interesting listening and a good example of critical evaluation.

 

Sounds good. Is it a regular programme, and when is it on?

[Margarita Ma 10]

Sounds good. Is it a regular programme, and when is it on?

 

It is a regular program. It was on yesterday first program of this series but being ill at the moment not sure what time I was laid in bed listening to all sorts. Try going to the Radio4 website and have a search, sometimes you can get a podcast and there is a repeat in the evening but not sure what day.

[pretty_big 10]

In my opinion the difference between extremists of any kind is entirely negligible.

 

How can you call 'people feeling disenfranchised, having no stake in society and no hope for the future' socialist rhetoric? It could have come from the mouth of Farage when talking about Brexit voters, or Trump at any one of his rallies. It is not a right-wing or left wing point, it is socio-psychological observation, one backed up by a great deal of research and one I believe to be accurate.

 

---------- Post added 30-11-2016 at 15:43 ----------

 

 

You can't base what is going on in an entire country only on what you see in your own life. Your own experience certainly allows a taking of the temperature, and offers an idea of some of the attitudes out there, but it is an incomplete picture. Inevitably and inescapably you see first-hand vastly less that actually takes place. That is no basis for being 'pretty certain there was no prolonged or lasting tide of alleged xenophobia or racism.' Applying the same logic, I could say that Sheffield accents no longer exist because I don't hear them any more, and I would be wrong. That is why anecdotal evidence in isolation can never be reliably representative.

 

A closer impression of the true picture of racism and xenophobia can be attained by considering some of the wider reporting.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36964916

 

I could offer more but I don't want to provide a load of links that you will dismiss because you do not trust the sources. Seek out whatever sources you do trust to present the national data.

 

Also, consider what is happening beyond our shores, across Western Europe (which parties are rising to prominence? what are their policy positions? what is their rhetoric based upon?) and, in particular in the US. Do the links between Steve Bannon (the chief White House strategist), Brietbart and neo-nazi, white supremacists not concern you at all?

 

Farage, Trump and Brexit haven't created racists and xenophobes, they have just helped to create an atmosphere in which the racists and xenophobes who have always been there think this this their time.

 

Whether it takes hold or not remains to be seen, which is precisely why we should hold the line, continue to challenge unacceptable attitudes and actions, and strive to ensure that it doesn't.

 

Creating your definition of racists and xenophobes, long may it continue !!

 

Meanwhile in the real world Trump and Farage are appealing to the disenfranchised white/black/Asian working class

[Margarita Ma 10]

I have had to spend a couple of days resting so have had another good look at this thread. To start at the beginning.

(Quote) 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."

__________________

I respect your right to have an opinion but your opinion has to earn the right to my respect

 

**(unquote)

*

 

 

The meaning of racism is fixed, in the parameters of its accepted definition, it is a fact. EDIT - It is undergoing some evolution though, and I don't know where it will finally land.

 

How do you want to define it?

 

 

(Quote)

 

The Daily Mail in the practice of attempting to normalise deviance by diminishing the impact of neo-nazi terrorism.

 

Can anybody suggest a reasonable justification for this -

 

The verdict and sentencing of the terrorist murder of MP Jo Cox made it onto the front of every major national newspaper in Britain on Thursday morning.

 

Every paper that is, apart from the Daily Mail, which today faced a barrage of criticism for beginning its coverage of the death of the mother-of-two at the hands of white supremacist Thomas Mair on page 30.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0ddedcf5c6ab5

 

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenter...-james-obrien/

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 01:30 ----------

 

(Unquote)

 

The story belonged on the front page, which is where it appeared in all the other papers. To not put it there is an attempt to diminish its impact (unless you have another explanation).

 

If you diminish the impact of something horrific you, by definition, make it less horrible, more normal - hence normalisation of deviance.

 

(Quote)His crime may not have been racist but he committed it in the name of a cause that most certainly is racist – neo-nazism. (Unquote)

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 01:46 ----------

complex equivalence/ This means that. The evidence showed that he was obsessed with Nazi paraphernalia but not that he was involved with a group or cause, He was a quiet man who never caused a problem with anyone until this attack one had the slightest clue what he had in his head.

Why do this when there is already enough evidence of racism in all societies including British society

 

 

(Quote)

Shifting the Overton Window can be a positive or negative process whereas the normalisation of deviance is always negative and often dangerous. (Unquote)

Surely this depends on your point of view you have said elsewhere that normalisation of change of use in language is normal and acceptable, evolution perhaps not those exact words but I am weary just from copying all this stuff to challenge some of what you say. Homosexuality was once labelled as deviance now it is considered normal by many people, that required normalisation. Words are used in a political manner (spin and demonising, disparaging and lets face it the obfuscation of the truth )so this is relevant.

 

(Quote)

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. (unquote)

You write as if all Muslims and immigrants in this country are poor. This is patently not true when there are luxury goods aimed at Muslims, in the shops and online, Restaurants and shops, representing all nationalities. If you don't know this you need to get out a bit more.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by*phil752*

i again suggest that your view are quite narrow on good and bad

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2016 at 02:13 ----------

 

 

 

ok let run with this i call some one ++++++++ and they are of a different colour is that racism?

Sadly you are becoming less and less coherent. I don't have a clue what you are asking me. Probably time to call it a night.

 

 

Last edited by mikem8634; 25-11-2016 at*02:17.You were probably right about calling it a night at this point the original post was very clear but you edited it, perhaps inadvertently. Cutting out the reverse situation.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by*El Cid*

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. (unquote)

No they cannot dictate, but they can affect the circumstances of other poor people making them even poorer, having less of a chance, this street is not one way only. Overcrowding the labour market, the housing and the education system of any country makes a difference to all the poor people in that country and it is not a positive one, unless you are an employer who wishes to drive down wages while making a major profit. It cannot be expected that poor people will welcome this.

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

(Quote) 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 ---------- (Unquote)

Magazines and newspapers leaflets and the like are ephemeral, You may have heard the term last weeks newsprint is this weeks chip paper. Or old news is no news

The above is probably the reason The Mail printed the sentencing report on an inside page and something that was not expected or more shocking piece of news goes on the front page. However I don't know as I do not read the mail except when someone highlights an article to look at. Do you know what was on the front page did you bother to look. Did anyone else bother to look. The fact is that sensationalism sells newspapers. The completely new tends to sell a newspaper and an editor's job is not just to cut out the waffle but to maximise those sales. This may seem a strange concept but it is true, the same is true of TV programs. An editor will chose articles, headers first para according to their shock level and saleability. Dog bites man is not news. Man bites dog is news. We all know that dogs bite and that an attack on a prominent public figure of authority will receive a severe sentence, hence the position of the article.

 

 

(Quote from another contributor)

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" (Unquote)

 

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.

___This sort of thing is a serious problem and deviousness of this kind of thing is harmful to campaign to eradicate racism in the workplace as well as the impact on the individual

(Quote)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. (unquote)

What do you accept as evidence in this sort of situation. The only independent witness was round the corner and it doesn't look as if he did anything about what he overheard. Tribunals don't generally advertise outside the area of work for independent witnesses.

 

(Quote)

I wrote an extensive reply to your earlier posts but unfortunately lost it. I may find time to write again in a different program and copy in.*

Basically language is being lazily and wrongly used to label people. Also you are perpetrating the same by accepting and reusing this modified language thereby helping to normalise a new but wrong use of a word, such as evolve. (unquote)

 

(Quote) Finally, you suggest that this isn't directed at me despite claiming that I have used language incorrectly. Yet you have failed to provide a single example of me using language incorrectly and appear to be applying some peculiarly individual and idiosyncratic reasoning to the subject.

 

However, having said all of that, if you feel I have misunderstood or that I am still wrong then, by all means, make your case, but please provide some evidence this time rather than making unsubstantiated claims. I will always admit I am wrong if somebody can show me how, it's all part of never-ending learning. (Unquote)

 

My wrong use of the word perpetrating. Apologies, I have a mind fogging cold and soaring temperature I won't go into the more disgusting aspects.

The word that I should have used was perpetuating.

I did not label you as lazy, but the people who should be correcting their misuse (teachers lecturers professors) are lazy in their correction of misuse, allowing the misuse results in normalisation among the supposed educated classes. This is why the misused words appear in dictionaries within a very short (Compared to pre computer days when compositing was a laborious and labour intensive skill)space of time.

The term then becomes accepted among the supposedly less educated and normalised.

Also: Wrongly using the a term whatever the term is, begins to devalue or skew that term. This may not seem important to the person who should be corrected. The importance should be pointed out to them before the misuse of it becomes normalised.

 

 

You suggested meanings are fixed yourself. Re read your Opening post.

And then this one where you claim meanings are fixed, but then contradict yourself.

 

The meaning of racism is fixed, in the parameters of its accepted definition, it is a fact. EDIT - It is undergoing some evolution though, and I don't know where it will finally land.

 

 

(Quote)What does*gay*mean? (Unquote) I stick to my definition.

I have looked online to see if I can find old copies of Gay Times and other material but failed to find any. That in itself does not mean they do not exist perhaps in library archive material which I do not have time to search for.

Just because I cannot easily find the evidence I was seeking does not mean it did or does not exist. Women's studies was a course run by some universities. I happened to study one of them, the term no longer exists because gender and racial studies would have been more appropriate and I believe Gender studies is the term now used where such a course is offered. Gay (capitalised) was written in some of the materials we studied. It was used to differentiate between homosexual and the other meanings of the word. LBGT seems to be the catch all term now used in magazines.

 

You seem to apply different standards to your own writing than you demand of others There are many instances in your posts where you claim various things. One such which comes to mind is the white supremacist violence as opposed to religious extremist violence. You gave no crime figures for this massive claim either of the number of incidences or the number of deaths and injuries. Or whether racially motivated attacks are included or excluded, these crimes are not necessarily committed by white supremacists.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by*Michael_W*

Your right, what happens in my life is not representative of a whole nation, have you seen any examples yourself ? Do you work with any EU nationals? Have they been subjected to post or even pre Brexit racism / xenophobia .... my guess is you just read stuff, well in that case don't believe the hype fella, Oh I forgot it's only hype if it's in the Sun or the DM*

Yes I have. Many, many times. That is to be expected given the types of work I have done. Obviously more pre-Brexit because that period was longer. Crucially, though, there are many reasons why I don't assume that my experience tells everybody's story.

 

How do you decide what is hype and what is true?

__________________

You don't say what experience you have, either working with EU Nationals or them being subjected to Xenophobia, or perhaps yourself. BTW. I would term it racist abuse.

 

(Quote)My guess is that there are loads of things you believe to be true that you haven't personally witnessed. I also think there is a chance you apply a higher standard to things you don't want to believe.* (Unquote)

Is this not true of most things and people?

I once worked in a place where Cliff Richard came to the counter to buy something. I was walking through from outside so initially only peripheral vision, not quite sure I took a second look and realised that I was correct in my identification. Perhaps that is what happens when people witness unacceptable behaviour. Not initially believing what they see because it is not the usual. Then there is the added fear factor to cope with. One has to be confident, courageous or foolhardy to stand up to something that is clearly wrong as one might be attacked oneself.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by*Michael_W*

Logic is not your strong point fella, clearly ...... what is the difference between calling people offensive names and chopping peoples heads off, shooting them on beaches, blowing people up etc .... and are they the same crime to you ?

False equivalence - look it up, it's a term from logical philosophy, you know, that thing that you do all the time and I'm apparently not very good at.

 

The severity of the action does not equate to prevalence of the problem. (Unquote)

(Quote)Most significantly,*how do you know there have been beheadings? Have you witnessed one? (unQuote)

The prevalence of a problem may only be a minor irritation or life threatening. Racism can lead to both. There is though a clear difference between prevalence and severity of a problem. Are you seriously suggesting that all the media coverage of beheadings etc. carried out by religious extremists, plus the reports of asylum seekers and refugees who escaped with their lives because they could recite verses from the Koran is a fiction, of some mad imagination.There are plenty of reports of both in all kinds of media. Why chose to believe one kind and not the other, or is your sole aim in life to play devils advocate.

[mikem8634 10]

I am not assuming you are addressing your concerns only to right-wingers!! I am saying you are only addressing your concerns. You are concerned about racism (as per the left-wing obsession) but this is not a concern for the vast majority of people. Take some time out to review polls on what issues are of most concern and you will see racism doesn't make the list. That isn't a denial of racism but a denial that it is a priority!

 

But you keep ignoring the issues that are important to the majority, keep boring them senseless with your racism obsession and watch as people continue to flee the left and seek representation on the right. Self-destruct if you must.

 

My reasoning is flawed

You really are hard work fella, are you stuck at home with nobody to talk to ..... tell me, what am I trying to deflect mike ?

Your persistence is very annoying, but more so because you keep changing words (something you criticise others for) to make out I have something to answer.

I have said pretty much that I don't believe xenophobia and racism are as prevalent as the likes of you choose to believe, particularly in the UK, we are a very tolerant bunch, I am sure that won't have escaped your attention during your life. You have claimed to have witnessed things that make your view different to mine, partially through your work I believe, well guess what, if your work makes you prone to witness more xenophobia and racism than your average person, then it is your view that has been skewed by exposure to it !

Your silly analogies about me not seeing ISIS atrocities and believing media when it suits are flawed and are reflective of your own issues ..... turn that mirror of yours around and take a good hard look at yourself and tell me that your not a hypocrite and don't have double standards that you judge others with, then jump off your high horse

 

mikem8634 sounds like a student who has found a way around the forum blocking of studies.

 

It's only reported hate crime John not actual.

 

One where there are witnesses.

 

Creating your definition of racists and xenophobes, long may it continue !!

 

Meanwhile in the real world Trump and Farage are appealing to the disenfranchised white/black/Asian working class

 

Not a single one of you engaging with the subject matter. Pretty telling.

 

Perhaps you could watch the footage of Richard Spencer.

 

Full version -

 

Excerpts -

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2016 at 14:11 ----------

 

I think this might be something that Margarita was suggesting earlier.

 

This would appear to be a good example of how the shifting of the Overton Window can lead to the Normalisation of Deviance. I haven't gone through the data with a fine tooth comb so (mainly because I keep being told off for spending too much time on here so I'm winding it down:)), so I will change my mind if some massive flaws are exposed in it. However, as it currently stands it serves as a good example of the process in practice.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/uncomfortable-truths-casey-review-immigration-integration-britain_uk_584550c1e4b00b318b106c85?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

I hope it also stands as an example of consistent thinking as opposed to slavish adherence to polarised ideology.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2016 at 15:18 ----------

 

Secondly, your perception of a huge rise in hate crime post-Brexit is largely a myth propogated by the left wing media you read. Had you read this article, you might have a different perspective?

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/The-great-Brexit-hate-crime-myth-claims-epidemic-race-crimes-referendum-simply-false.html

 

Or do you only selectively believe the facts and stories you agree with?

 

Ok, then. Firstly, I do not have a perception of a huge rise in hate crime post-Brexit. I have a perception of things beginning to change and some very ugly things gaining a prominence that had previously been denied them.

 

I don't only selectively believe the facts and stories I agree with. I have, however, decided that a few sources (some right, some left) are simply too unreliable to treat seriously. The Mail is one of them. That is not to say that it cannot be factual, it can, and I think I will demonstrate that in a moment if you stick with me.

 

In attempting to fact check the article I pretty quickly came across this, which, I think, presents a much more balanced appraisal and represents, broadly speaking, where I think we are. If you read that first, you may be more willing to hear what I have to say about the Mail.

 

http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/hatecrimethefactsbehindtheheadlines.pdf

 

The problem with the Mail article is not necessarily what it says, but how it says it. I am not at all interested in the rhetoric, it undermines objectivity and comes across as childish, lazy and entirely too partisan. Phrases like gravy train, and the constant suggestions that the taxpayer is being ripped-off is where news crosses the line into ideology, where the Mail stops reporting and starts drawing battle lines. That, I believe to be irresponsible and ill-conceived, whether The Mail does it or The Guardian does it, because the truth is, at this stage, we just don't know the full picture. Having some precautionary strategies in place could prove a good idea but the Mail wants everyone to think it is a done deal, end of discussion, just a load of dishonest nonsense. I am highly suspicious of that and have encountered it far too much in the Mail for me to allow it credibility any more. There is an overwhelming variety of sources for information and I don't really see the need to bother with one that has consistently demonstrated that it sold its soul a long time ago.

 

So, yes there are several accurate and correct things in that Mail article, I would just never choose to get them from the Mail.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2016 at 15:32 ----------

 

Margarita, it is really difficult to go through your points due to the format of your post, but I'll have a go nonetheless.

 

The Normalisation of Deviance is not the same as normalising deviation. I think our fundamental misunderstanding can be traced to the following -

 

The difference between deviance and deviation is that deviance is (sociology) actions or behaviours that violate formal and informal cultural norms such as law and the discouragement from public nose-picking while deviation is the act of deviating; a wandering from the way; variation from the common way, from an established rule, etc; departure, as from the right course or the path of duty. http://the-difference-between.com/deviation/deviance

 

 

 

 

I feel you are being exceedingly charitable to the Mail regarding the placement of Edward Mair's conviction. That, of course, is your perogative, but do consider why so many other front pages on that day chose differently.

 

 

To suggest that a meaning is currently fixed by it's dictionary definition does not preclude future change. Your entire point regarding meanings and definitions relies on the premise that all the dictionaries are wrong. I cannot accept that. I think it is obvious to all concerned that gay does not have to be capitalised in order to mean homosexual, despite your attempt to suggest it does, and that, therefore, the meaning of gay has evolved. I can understand why you are continuing to resist that, as it fatally undermines your position, but it is an inescapable fact.

 

 

I am happy to provide evidence for anything I claim, no double standards here. So, here you go -

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

 

http://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/#americas-layered-defenses

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic-terrorism-charleston_n_7654720.html

 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-americans-are-the-biggest-terror-threat-in-the-united-states/211608/

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743?rm=eu

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/testimony/the-terrorist-threat-confronting-the-united-states

 

Of course I accept the evidence of ISIS atrocities. All you need to do is ask Michael_W the exact same question, just replace ISIS with racism, to see the painfully obvious point I was making.

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2016 at 15:38 ----------

 

I apologise for that being ridiculously long but there were a good few loose ends to tie up.

Edited December 5, 2016 by mikem8634

[Margarita Ma 10]

Mike. Firstly I do not need to ask Micheal W anything I have not seen anyone deny that racism exists we all know that is exists, including MW.

Secondly. Do not shout at me even in print.

Thirdly. Your references seem to be all American can you show how this relates to Britain and Europe in actual deaths and injuries? The figures in the articles vary calling into question their accuracy, but that aside we will never know(at least I won't)the true picture because attacks that are foiled, very often do not reach publication (for security reasons) for many years. The figures quoted have a long way to go before they equal the almost 3,000 killed in the twin Towers attack. This is not to deny white supremacists exist, we know they do and so do supremacists in other cultures.

 

Do you accept that the abuse of mainly white girls by men of Asian origin was racist and that the cover up by the authorities, which proved to be national, was the normalisation of deviance on a grand scale.

[melthebell 863]

seems its picking up in America with hate crimes post trump

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39173300

[phil752 10]

How do you define an 'actual' hate crime then?

 

try driving a truck through any built up area and you get abuse which just is ignored, now if it was say Bradford and i was called a white ***** is that a racial crime againstthe driver. Should I have repoted it to boast some stats

Edited March 5, 2017 by phil752