Google apps
Main menu

"v"

6 Comments -

1 – 6 of 6
Blogger AndrewSshi said...

And yet your country is further to the left of ours socially and economically, and I'm not sure if the percentage of Britons who go to church even reaches into the double digits.

So what gives?

Monday, 31 January, 2011

Blogger John Peacock said...

Yesterday I had to go into a branch of Tesco to get my father's (or more likely his partner's*) Sunday Mail. As I handed over the token to pay for it I couldn't stop myself blurting out "It's not for me!" Of course the woman behind the counter was confused, which made it even worse, as I obviously now look like someone who might buy The Sunday Mail for myself.

*It contains a killer combination of reactionary froth and loathesomely prurient celebrity gossip.

Monday, 31 January, 2011

Blogger Andrew Rilstone said...

In fairness -- I think that the Guardian columnists probably think that Christian MP's shouldn't refer to their religion: not that they shouldn't be allowed to.

Monday, 31 January, 2011

Blogger Kevin Cowtan said...

I think Rene Girard had something to say about this.

Monday, 31 January, 2011

Blogger Kevin Cowtan said...

Actually, I'll expand on that. The issue is scapegoating.

The challenge we face in maintaining some sort of mental hygeine is to not scapegoat Daily Mail readers in the way they are being persuaded to scapegoat Muslims and gays. Because that only perpetuates the cycle of retribution.

I suspect the 'political correctness gone mad' meme may well be as much our fault as theirs. PC started out well meaning, but I suspect that (we) liberals started using it as an indescriminate tool to bash conservatives, rather than as a fine scalple in the precision surgical excision of the perpetuation of oppression through language. Conservatives were pushed into answering it, and succeeded in bring ridicule on the enterprise, some of was probably warranted by the end.

The only way to win that game is not to play.

However, the instigators of this kind of us-and-them attitude, such as Mel herself, are certainly fair game. In dealing with a Mail reader you have an interesting communication challenge: How to challenge the paper without attacking them? Given that newspapers work by making their readers feel good about the views they already hold, that's challenging.

Monday, 31 January, 2011

Blogger Sam Dodsworth said...

So what gives?

A flip answer might be that British conservatives vaguely approve of "Christian values" but don't feel the need to participate in actual Christianity - that's what Bishops are for, after all.

As a slightly longer answer... the Daily Mail appeals to a particular kind of lower-middle-class conservativism that's driven by class anxiety. Conservatives of this type demonise the working classes and want rigid social structures because they're afraid of downward mobility. They hold "traditional", "common sense" values that, as they see it, distinguish them from the lawless and undisciplined underclass. Social liberals want pluralism and class mobility so they're naturally seen as a threat.

So I don't think Daily Mail-style homophobia has much to do with morality or religion in a direct way. Gay rights means social change and change to our values, and their views incline them to see both kinds of change as a threat.

Monday, 31 January, 2011