On a visit to my local library at the weekend my eye was caught by a book with a flashy and colourful, albeit grammatically questionable, cover: a kids [sic] book about immigration, by M.J. Calderon. My children are the children of an immigrant; for years I also lived as an economic migrant in a foreign country; and in any case immigration is up there with the most salient political issues of our time. So I decided to take the book out and see what it has to offer its five- to nine-year-old readers.
I don’t really know what I was thinking. I am a father of small children in the mid-21st century West, so I have become accustomed to being disappointed and dispirited by the nakedly didactic drivel that contemporary children’s authors tend to serve up. Why, then, did I allow hope to trump expectation? I’ve no idea. But, in any event, while the book itself is worse than useless as an actual spur to conversation between parents and children about its subject matter, it does at least have value as an aid to reflection on certain currents within contemporary culture, which are not limited to immigration or kids’ (or even kids) books. Of these, I think there are three that are worth commenting on: first, the replacement of the embodied by the abstract; second, the weaponisation of ‘conversation’; and third, the use of the ‘education’ of children as a solvent to the barrier posed by the family against both the state and commerce.
First, then, a comment about a trend in our media landscape which I have noticed and reflected on from time to time, but which I don’t think is sufficiently widely recognised – the death of fiction per se as having the primary objective of telling a story about particular characters imagined as individual human beings in their own right, and its replacement by an understanding of the role of fiction as chiefly being a model through which to imagine an idealised future or to critique an idealised past. And this seems connected in particular to a preference for abstraction over embodiment: a need to break down the act of storytelling itself into its constituent parts – plot, character, dialogue – so as to maximally instrumentalise each. Story becomes significant only because of what it teaches us; character becomes significant only in the sense of what each character represents; dialogue becomes significant only as a vehicle through which good, or bad, ideas are exposed and taught or criticised respectively. The result is a dissatisfying, two-dimensional, modular approach to fiction, in which the enterprise is reduced to a fitting-together of bits in order to achieve an objective: this character has these characteristics, and so it is important that they be seen to be doing this in this particular moment, and important that they say that.
This is not, I think, how fiction writers of the past would have understood their task, because what they were doing was so much more implicit, intuitive and integrated into the whole. Read any interview with a great writer about his or her process of writing, and you will come across, again and again, the same kind of message: fiction is an exercise through which the writer first discovers the story (this is the word that is very often used) through the telling, and then hones and sharpens it until it is fit for public consumption. It is almost as though it is revealed, rather than invented. Of course, what is being revealed is all within the author’s own mind. But it is almost entirely unearthed from the unconscious rather than carefully plotted or worked out in advance.
Anyone familiar with modern storytelling (in books, TV or film) will I think understand my complaint (and regular readers may once more bring to mind Iain McGilchrist). To any lover of literature or film the modern trend is a deeply depressing and alienating one, and indeed it is largely the reason why I have given up on even trying to engage with any work of fiction created since the start of the internet age. And it is no accident that children’s books – which are often the only books that many adults nowadays buy in quantity – should be at the cutting edge of this. I can’t think of a children’s book written after around 2010 that I have read that hasn’t struck me as being primarily a means of transmitting a fairly obvious message (usually that it is the most important thing in life to be yourself, but that if you are a girl it is equally important that you be adventurous, risk-taking and strong, and if you are a boy it is important that you do not display those qualities). Indeed, the ongoing popularity of J.K. Rowling seems to me to at least in part derive from the fact that kids intuit that her main goal is always to tell a great story about these particular characters, warts and all, rather than being to achieve an instrumental goal of some kind.
A kids book about immigration represents the next stage in the process, in that it is a kids’ book that has no story at all, nor really indeed any pictures, and simply comprises a series of statements which the child is supposed to directly imbibe. These photos are representative; this is what every single page of the book looks like:
And the reasons for this are, of course, as plain as day. If you know what the Truth is, and you know what message you want your book to bring across, and you know ultimately what it is that the reader is supposed to think – and if your understanding of story is the impoverished contemporary understanding in which fiction only serves to achieve (or stand in the way of) an end – then why bother with story in the first place? Why bother with characters, dialogue, picture, plot? Story is for imparting a message, so just maximise the efficiency of the process and transmit the message in undiluted form. It goes without saying that no child in their right mind would want to touch the result with a barge pole, but since they’re not going to be the ones buying it (teachers, school librarians and über-liberal parents are obviously the primary market) that hardly matters.
The second notable feature of the book – and here we come to the substantive content – is the way in which it uses the concept of a ‘conversation’ to achieve the exact opposite. This is a book which wears the immanent critique of itself on its sleeve: it tells us it is designed to do one thing, but it is transparently an attempt to do something very different. Here’s the ‘intro for grownups’, in full, with important emphases added:
Understanding the world and those who inhabit it is a wonderful, beautiful and sometimes very difficult journey. Which is why grownups tend to make the mistake of tiptoeing around certain topics rather than taking the time to ask questions about their own understanding, listen to questions from kids and then learning together.
Immigration can be one of those topics. It’s complicated. Immigration often involves making hard decisions out of desperation, fear and love. And it’s often a difficult journey that is driven by hope. So the goal of this book is to encourage discussion and to understand that we all contribute to making our countries – and the world – a better place. No matter who we are, or where we come from, we matter.
We are just human beings, after all.
Got that? We need to encourage discussion and ask questions, because immigration is so very complicated. And yet the goal of the discussion makes everything very simple: at the end of the discussion, we’re all going to understand that everybody makes the country they live in, and the world, a better place – in other words, that immigration is basically good and that only a heartless villain would want to make immigration difficult.
Does that sound to you like a discussion? It sounds to me more like a lecture. And it goes without saying that while asking questions is welcomed, this only refers to certain questions, and not others. You’re allowed to ask why people become immigrants (“to protect [their] family from danger, a lack of resources and limited opportunities where [they] were living”), and you’re allowed to ask about the “language, culture or story” of anyone you know who is from a different country. But you are not allowed to ask the troubling, mean-spirited, vexatious kinds of questions that might problematise the central assumptions of the author. For example, off the top of my head:
- Is it really the case that we all contribute to making our countries better? Even, say, Abdul Ezedi, who came to the U.K. from Afghanistan illegally in 2016, committed various sexual offences, and then went on to throw a corrosive alkaline substance at a mother and her two young children, causing them life-changing injuries? Did he make the U.K. a better place?
- Is it perhaps the case that the extent to which immigration makes a country better depends on the overall numbers of immigrants, so that we might for example say that 50,000 immigrants have a qualitatively as well as a quantitatively different impact to 500,000?
- Is it perhaps the case that there is a distinction to be drawn between skilled and unskilled immigrants?
- Is there perhaps a case to be made that while immigration may make a country better for some of the resident population (the middle- and upper-classes) it makes life worse for others (the working classes, who become forced to compete and find their wages get driven down)?
- Setting aside the rights and wrongs of the matter, in a democracy shouldn’t the Government aim to achieve a level of immigration which the demos supports?
You may have other questions. But you get the point. A kids book about immigration claims to be an attempt to generate opportunities for children and adults to talk through a complicated subject. But that isn’t what it actually seeks to do. What it actually seeks to do is to close off genuine conversation and discussion in favour of inculcating a worldview, in which the only problem with immigration (specifically into the USA) is that to come legally is a “really complicated process [which] takes a long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long [etc.] time” and that sometimes when people talk about immigrants they use “mean and offensive words” which make it “difficult for immigrants to share their struggles, ask for help when they need it and advocate for [sic] change”. The aim is not to reflect the underlying complexity of the issues. It is to simplify everything to a matter of good versus bad.
This brings us to the third, more oblique, theme which A kids book about immigration raises: the idea that children and adults alike should be “learning together” about immigration rather than the adults taking charge. The implication of this is clear enough, of course: when it comes to understanding the issue of immigration, no parent can be said to possess more authority than the child; true understanding derives from equality between the two. In the conception of parent-child relationships which the book envisages, it is both parents and children who come to the feet of the expert (i.e., M.J. Calderon) to learn what to think about the complexities involved in the issue at hand. The role of the parent is as facilitator of the educational process by which expertise is made known, rather than the one who him- or herself guides the child from a position of experience and knowledge.
This has a great deal in common with a subject – sexuality education – about which I have written at length before (here and here). I noted in one of those posts, citing the former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, that the role of education is increasingly conceptualised as “the main fundamental tool for combating patriarchalism and generating the cultural shift so necessary for equality among individuals”. As I also noted, this led to a disturbing conclusion, which again was made plain by that former UN Special Rapporteur:
Although fathers and mothers are free to choose the type of education that their sons and daughters will have, this authority may never run counter to the rights of children and adolescents, in accordance with the primacy of the principle of the best interests of the child.
The modern state, in other words, increasingly conceives of the family, and particular parenthood, as a barrier to be broken down so that it can more directly interface with the child so as to secure the latter’s “best interests”, which it presumptively has a better idea of than the parents. What the state desires vis-à-vis children, as I have elsewhere discussed, is to intervene as closely and intimately as possible, in the name of creating the future client class which it needs to legitimise its own Government. One way of doing this, it goes without saying, is to diminish the authority of the parent and to reduce the importance of the parent-child relationship by putting the parent in a position of equality with the child, such that both approach life on the same footing and the same level of expertise. The parent doesn’t know more about a given issue (such as immigration) than the child – far from it. The parent is probably in a position of benighted ignorance and malice, and at best as much in need of ‘learning’ as his or her offspring. The real figure of authority is the ‘neutral’ expert, self-appointed or otherwise.
As A kids book about immigration shows us, however, the undermining of the family is led as much by commercial actors as it is by governmental ones. The state is poised against the family and wishes to break down the barrier between public and private because to do so expands its power and provides it with legitimacy; commercial actors like to do so because convincing parents they lack authority and wisdom causes them to buy books and other products. And at the heart of the storm are people like M.J. Calderon, no doubt totally sincere in their desire to make the world a “better place”, but whose efforts chiefly suit the objectives of both state and market – the baptist to the bootleggers, earnestly working to increase “respect, fairness and kindness”, but facilitating much baser motives among governmental and commercial actors alike.
The punchline of all of this, of course, is not that there are no children’s books to be written about immigration at all (although I certainly think that children aged five to nine are too young to be exposed to matters like this – they should be focused on learning how to navigate school, family and friendship rather than worrying about Big Issues). It is that, in the right hands, we are crying out for books for older children (what we euphemistically call ‘young adults’) which actually present both sides to this and other such stories in a genuine and non-judgemental way. The grim irony of A kids book about immigration is that, in seeking to “break down the complexities of immigration” and avoid “tiptoeing around certain topics” it ends up presenting a glib, patronising and patently false distortion of the issue which serves absolutely no-one. If “kids are ready”, as the tag-line for akidsco, the company that publishes A kids book goes, then they are ready for a real discussion which does justice to the complicated reality, and not for mere propaganda masquerading as debate.
More broadly, what is bleakly emblematic about the approach taken in A kids book about immigration is what it shows us about the nature of public discussion – such as it is – across the West in general. M.J. Calderon’s book, it seems to me, exemplifies the way in which ‘experts’, often self-appointed, reduce complex subjects (immigration, climate change, gender identification, war in Ukraine, lockdowns and so on and so forth) to simple ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ binaries, and then present those binaries to us as the inevitable consequence of whatever public discussion might conceivably take place. “Yes,” the message always seems to go, “in a democracy it is important to debate the issues, but only insofar as this results in the outcome which we, the experts, have ratified in advance.” We may not discuss whether we want a particular outcome; we may only discuss how it is to be implemented, and why the alternative is evil and wrong. Having an “open conversation” turns out in fact to be the most closed one imaginable: “Let’s all discuss what the best approach to immigration policy is, and why it’s open borders,” This is what public debate has come to; not so much discussion as the rehearsal of asinine soundbites, repeated until they get themselves into our thick skulls.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Regarding the Telegraph’s paywalled story on their switch to digital currency, does it explain how they used to use actual cash online? It seems, CBDC may be a rather different beast than most of us might imagine?
The article makes it clear that Sweden does still have cash, the fraud seems to have come from their attempts to make digital payment as quick and easy as cash.
The fraud seems to particularly come with the use of mobile phones for payments, once you have someone’s mobile phone payment ‘app’ you can defraud that person.
For example I heard recently that some car-parks in the UK that require payment by ‘app’ put up QR codes which your mobile phone can scan in. Fraudsters have been putting scam QR codes up over the top so that when you scan in the QR code your mobile phone sends your payment details to a fraudster.
So, online payments rather than CBDC per se?
By using the Brave browser you are able to read paywalled stories in the DT and also read the Mail On-line without seeing all their rubbish advertising.
PS It also lets you watch Youtube videos without being interrupted by advertising.
That used to be the case. I use Brave but now get blocked by the Paywall. This didn’t used to happen.
To read the article, copy the web address for the DT article into the search box on:
https://archive.is
Thursday morning Forest Road & A330 Hatchett Lane Ascot
Even though there wasn’t much traffic,
every other car was beeping when
they saw our yellow boards.
If Biden does stand down, does Harris automatically take over and her name just replaces his for the November election as incumbent?
I think that from a legal, constitutional and financial perspective, the Presidency could move seamlessly to Harris and she could become the President and the candidate. The problem would come if they wanted someone else instead.
I think America might just survive a few months of her. She will surely not win an election.
The short answer is no.
I understand that it will be Vice President Trump that steps up.
That was the plan all along. Remember that Biden said, when he first chose the Ethnic Indian/African woman as his Vice-President, that he was “just a place-holder for disadvantaged ethnic minorities”.
The coming “Global Goddess Religion” which the Globalists intend to force upon the world means placing women in the leadership positions of all countries.
See “The Empress of the European Union”, for example:
Ursula von der Lyin’
“Conservative failure to address housing issues has alienated voters and will haunt them politically for decades, says Charles Moore in the Spectator.”
Buying property especially anywhere in the south east is a problem for many, especially anyone not on the property ladder, but the birth rate is below replacement and has been for decades. All of the pressure on housing is coming from immigration.
Not quite all – but certainly a lot. In 2022 nearly 40% of births in
the UKEngland and Wales were to parents where at least one was not born in the UK.However, over recent decades there has also been an increase in single ownership and single parent families.
Who would have thought that taking on the biggest purchase of a person’s life might require a team effort?
(Edited to correct the assertion in the first paragraph.)
Thanks and I agree but my point was that one of the main reasons we need more housing is an increase in population and if the birth rate is below replacement and has been for decades, the increase in population must be coming from immigration.
I think a significant (but probably not main, as you point out) problem is that a divorced (former) couple with children often needs two family homes. Where the kids can be at home with either parent from time to time. It seems reasonable that each will want to own their home – ask Angela Rayner.
I left the SE nearly 70 years ago and not only survived, but thrived, in the NW. I was able to afford a 4 bed detached in a quarter acre of garden for the price of an average flat in London.
My kids both bought their own places in the area in their early 30s and have easy access to big cities and splendid countryside in N Wales, the Lake District and the Pennines.
Yeah both me & the Mrs and both our adult kids have moved away from London – if you can find a decent job somewhere else it’s only worth staying if you really feel you need to be in/near a big metropolis.
After the attack on the “Okhmadit” children’s hospital in Kyiv on July 8, 2024, one of the pilots of the 22nd heavy bomber aviation division (military unit 06987, Engels airfield) contacted the GUR chatbot of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine – (22nd heavy bomber squadron) constantly attacks Ukrainian cities with Kh-101 missiles.
According to the intelligence sources of the “Information Resistance”, the Russian military wrote that he was shocked by the attack on the children’s hospital and, like several of his colleagues, did not understand why they were being forced to attack the civilian infrastructure of Ukraine.
Therefore, he decided to hand over to the Ukrainian side documents related to the activities of his military unit, as well as private photos of the command staff of the 22nd heavy bomber aviation division.
Among the mass of information – documents from the personal affairs of senior officers, personal data of Russian servicemen and members of their families, etc. But the most valuable are the stamped documents of the 22nd heavy bomber aviation division.
Oops!
Where did you copy that from. You are usually very good at adding references.
Tell the guy (as if he did not know) that destroying power generation facilities reduces the capability of the enemy to transport weapons and forces around the country.
Source?
Doesn’t ring true to me – the pilot would be condemning himself and potentially colleagues to death?
“U.K. ‘greenlights’ strikes against Putin’s forces in Russia as Kyiv on path to NATO”
We gave Ukraine security assurances regarding its territorial integrity in 1994.
In return, Ukraine gave up thousands of nuclear warheads.
Good to see that we are at least doing something to live up to those fine words.
Im not sure that this decision doesn’t fall squarely in the category “what could possibly go wrong”?
How prescient you are!
It already went wrong!
The UK MoD has since had to correct that statement!
Does anyone actually run the MoD or are they just like Brian pretending to be a prophet?
‘You’re making it up as you go along!’
I suppose, looking on the bright side, you could say, in this case, that the MoD is so bad it’s good! No-one now has any clue what the policy is! Plausible deniability.
Plus ça change…….
Yes, Keir Starmer announcing that Ukraine may use Storm Shadow missiles to attack targets inside Russia is, in my opinion, an act of war: UK against Russia. Let us hope that President Putin continues to show great restraint, as opposed to every modern UK PM.
In fact Starmer’s latest statement is that British Government policy ‘has not changed’. Ukraine may not use British munitions across the 1994 Ukrainian borders but the UK MoD said it was ‘nuanced’, then the Defence Secretary said Ukraine could use them over the border because that was the policy announced by Cameron…..following so far? Me neither…..
It is clear from the havoc wreaked against civilian targets in Belgorod and the shooting down of the Russian plane returning Ukrainian pows that Ukraine does pretty much what it wants with foreign weapons.
It is only restricted by the limited supply of said weapons, not by any conditions placed on them by the West.
They know they cannot win militarily and instead resort to terror attacks against Russian civilians, to which the West turns a blind eye.
Look on the bright side – the coal will still be there when a future generation wants it strongly enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=jnhwBoFxaDI&ab_channel=JordanBPeterson
“Why the Establishment Hates This Man | Tommy Robinson | EP 462”
Well worth watching wide-ranging discussion about the problem of islamic extremism in our towns and cities, the lack of courage and cover-ups by our police and judiciary, the vilification of people, including children, who expose the truth. Sounds familiar? The various NHS scandals, the Post Office Horizon scandal and grooming gangs all come to mind. I submitted this for the News round-up but it’s not appeared. I guess it’s too much of a hot potato.
Tommy Robinson and Donald Trump both fit into the category of not being people I would want to sit down and chat to but have a knack of saying things that many (non-elite) people like me agree with, and are pejoratively described as far right or populists.
I agree with you about Trump but after watching this interview I could imagine sitting down with Tommy Robinson in an effort to understand the truth and implications of what he’s experienced. He has not only been vilified but actively suppressed by the establishment. He seems to be a very brave man in contrast to the many who lack the courage to speak out.
Reform an establishment plant?
https://x.com/ThinkingSlow1/status/1811456454659834146
Alex gets some things wrong but also lots right, and I do think this is plausible; certainly worthy of consideration.
Enjoying the downvotes: cannot be considered. Reform good, all other parties bad. Eyes forward.
I’m not for a second saying I know what the truth is, but without an open mind what makes us any different to the vax-pushers, other than the choice we made?
Since DS has introduced a donors-only commenting regime, downvoting is inexcusable.
Perhaps DS management might consider naming downvoters as some other forums do so that members have a shorthand way of saying “I don’t agree”.
Much too subtle for the Establishment.
i support the Reform movement but also know we need to guard against jumping on bandwagons and hoping someone else will represent our interests. I don’t think Farage and Co are establishment puppets but we need to be aware of their weaknesses and keep fighting for change to restore real democracy.
“Ladies and gentlemen, President Putin”
I couldn’t bring myself to watch this. I was hoping it was clever cutting together of different clips or a deepfake type of thing. Then the news on Classic FM (LBC news, I think) broadcast the audio clip and the interview when Mr Biden repeatedly tried and failed to pronounce ‘Neurological’.
As the X poster said in the headline: Holy Crap.
He’s not only got to abandon his run for a second term, he really needs to stand down before he causes a serious diplomatic incident. The trouble is that would put Kamala Harris in the hot seat and well out of her depth.
Even the Beeb has carried this news – where’s Marianna when he needs her?
It is interesting (toe curling) to see his excuse at the subsequent press conference – my source was Sky News Australia.
Mrs SoR reminded me about this Not the Nine O’clock News sketch…
Thank Mrs sor for that, please.
“Biden aides working on plan to convince President to stand down”
And who prey tell is going to replace him?
Kamala? that giggling kindergarten teacher is even less popular than him!
She’s the vice president, how can they side step her?
they will just be swapping out one dunce for a bigger one!
Oh the infighting if they try
One of the problems with people with his condition is that they are unaware that they have a problem. They have a completely different awareness of the world which diverges increasingly from reality.
Oh, let’s hope so, then Trump will win!
“Reform infighting begins as Nigel Farage effectively sacks deputy”
If Reform meant anything to Habib, he would withdraw, magnanimously and generously wish his successor well, and then go and seeth on his sofa with a large whiskey. The fact he wants to spit the dummy, and hint at deeper indiscretions frankly shows him up to be not worth his salt. Good riddance…
Could it possibly be the Tory Party supporting DSaily Mail has an agenda?
Well said! Nobody “sacked” him. Nigel very sensibly chose the newly elected Member of Parliament, Richard Tice, to be his new Deputy Leader, and not-so-sensibly chose the new Muslim Pakistani Millionaire donor as the new Party Chairman, leaving the Jewish Pakistani Millionaire Habib without a top leadership post. So he went to the press in a hissy fit.
The Third World doesn’t do “magnanimous”.
I must admit I was impressed at Richard Tice standing aside to allow Farage to take over! it does show he his more loyal to the betterment of his country than his own career
Maybe Habib should have considered the personal gain of showing the same humility for the reform cause?
That is an excellent point. I was also impressed at Richard Tice withdrawing so gracefully, especially after he had worked so hard to keep the Reform Party going almost single-handedly, while Nigel kept changing his mind. I was so glad when Tice was elected as one of The Five Musketeers, and now as a most worthy Deputy Leader. He and Nigel have brought a real sense of fun to the proceedings, unlike the vast majority of MPs in Parliament.
nonetheless the “infighting” keeps Reform in the news and there’s no such thing as bad news I’m told. I’ve always liked Ben Habib’s contributions to the debate but he does seem to be out of favour maybe because he did so badly in Wellingborough.
It appears that Daily Sceptic has decided only subscribers may approve or disapprove comments, i.e. hit the thumbs up or down buttons.
There are so many interesting sources of information on the internet that it is not really likely for everyone to want to subscribe to everything, never mind the resulting costs.
Even as a subscriber to DS, I think it is more beneficial to having a wide readership to allow anyone to tick the thumbs up or down buttons. I believe restricting that option to subscribers only will end up with less people reading DS.
What does everyone else think?
Possibly. I do uptick comments I think are particularly good but I’m not sure it’s very important either way. The comments are the interesting bit. A downvote without a comment seems especially pointless.
Did you not read Ian Rons’ reasoning for the change? We were getting hit by lots of bots and 77th Hamster Penis Brigade, basement-dwelling saddos. Personally I think it might encourage more people to subscribe. To be honest, I’m in favour of doing away with the whole function, period. It’s unnecessary, can hamper dialogue and we’re not characters in some virtual reality video game, here for others’ entertainment and to be manipulated by a load of little red/green numbers.
I don’t read all comments anyway but I certainly don’t like/dislike my way through every individual comment I do read. It’s all a bit petty and inconsequential, to my mind. I’m sure some people do require and crave that positive feedback they might get from a lot of green numbers under their posts but that’s seriously lame and should hardly be a driver for if you choose to engage with the site’s commenters or offer up your opinion on something, whether it be popular or not. I think anyone in favour of the thumbs is someone who enjoys/is at ease with being manipulated, which is all a bit ironic considering the whole ethos of this site and what we bang on about a lot of the time.
agree. the whole like/dislike activity is mindless and meaningless for free-thinking people.
“The Government denies Ed Miliband overruled officials in his own department”
We know such claims must be untrue because the Tories have told us their failure to act on conservative issues and their undue enthusiasm for woke, globalist and left wing policies was because the officials insisted and would not accept Minisers’ instructions. And we do trust them not to tell fibs, don’t we children.
It is so quiet around here with the rule change. I am not sure I like it.
I think what you’re referring to is the peace and quiet due to lack of distraction, because this place should be utilized by people who want to share opinions and enter into discourse only. Not the constant background noise and interference of petty little shitheads that sit trolling at home, too tight to put their hands in their pockets, too cowardly to offer up a counter-argument and actually join in an exchange. Now that lot have to get a hobby. What a bummer for them! LOL
Sounds like these same saddos had more of an influence, albeit subconsciously, than maybe you realised before. I should come back later when I’ve more time and do one of my ‘Andrew Tate’ posts, and see how many little red numbers I can accrue compared to before. That would be a good litmus test. Failing that there’s still GlassHalfFull’s love affair with terrorists and Monro’s usual offerings, so other litmus tests are available..
I was really referring to the paucity of upvoters, It is good to have people show their appreciation of your view and it is also helpful to see how other comments are judged. I am not so arrogant as to assume mine is always the right view and a decent upvote count flags up the better ones.
I don’t criticise people who don’t donate. There must be many who have a brain and an interest but don’t have the spare cash to commit or the spare time to spend following this forum regularly.
I view downvoters entirely differently because someone can disagree for any number of reasons. If they said what they disagreed with, it might be because I have expressed myself poorly, for example, and it gives me the opportunity to clarify, which is why I am replying to you at length, because you seem to have misinterpreted my meaning.
This is also why I take the time to address Munro’s comments on Ukraine in more detail. This is a topic I follow quite closely, and not, I hasten to add because I support Putin, which I don’t, but because this is an area where Western powers are destroying our standard of living and risking annihilation of us all in the pursuit of American hegemony. It is not in the best interests of the majority of the world, and it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not in the interests of Europe; it is solely for the benefit of the USA.
Well I will hazard a guess that the drastic drop in voting since the recent DS changes were implemented is surely evidence that the vast majority of people using this function were those without accounts, therefore the majority of people who pay to comment aren’t big users of this redundant and pointless function ( in my opinion ) anyway, hence why I think DS should just ditch it entirely. It effects nothing and it changes nothing. I would disagree about needing that positive feedback or some sort of validation just because you post a comment, however, I can only speak for myself because getting virtual pats on the back or praise is not what motivates me, but we’re all different. If anyone wishes to show appreciation, likewise to disagree with a post, then they can respond with a comment, which is normal behaviour.
People should share their views and opinions ( as long as this is done respectfully, as one would do in a real life situation ) without fear and to pot with anyone else and how they wish to receive our posts. But I’m not inherently a people-pleaser and maybe some posters are.
The ridiculous amount of downvotes people would get on some posts was just silly, that’s why I view the people responsible as a nuisance and rather pathetic, and this annoyance has been pointed out by several commenters on here now. People who can’t afford to donate can still read most articles and all of the comments, so I’m not sure what meaningful difference being able to vote or not makes, so this change is neither here nor there, really. As I said, I don’t enjoy feeling manipulated, like a character in a video game, there for somebody else’s entertainment. After 3 years of posting on here now I got used to ignoring them and became desensitized and totally used to their constant presence, but I’m not sorry to see the back of them.
I just thought I would let you know that I used to be an upvoter as even though I subscribe I was always about a day late reading the comments as I read the DS via the email each day, so commenting seemed pointless. I have never been one of your trolls and have always enjoyed the way you deal with them. I had quite a job signing in again today so I thought I had better make use of it and comment for the first time.
“Braverman vs Badenoch: the battle to lead the Tories”
The Battle to lead the Tories in India.
Oh wait, no, the Battle to lead the Tories in Africa.
Oh wait, no, The Tories in Great Britain are given the choice of an Indian woman or an African woman as leader.
Indigenous British White Men need not apply.
Who decided this, I wonder?
“Reform U.K. is ready to make electoral history” – “Zia Yusuf, the youthful and highly successful new star of the Reform party…”
I wonder how many millionaire donors to other political parties, the LibLabCons and others, for example, expect to be handed leadership positions in those parties, in exchange for their donations?
Perhaps this is a common and well-known practice in the West that I’d never heard of before. If so, pardon my ignorance.
“What Labour could learn from Australia and New Zealand”
It was good to read what our fearless leader’s been up to Down Under, and how we can learn from their own experience of battling for Freedom of Speech. Together we are stronger.