If "leaders" were to identify a real problem, then they would be obligated to actually address it. Much more convenient to invent a problem; it can never be fixed so you can trot it out anytime to deflect from a real problem. Meanwhile (to mix metaphors) you kick the can down the road on the real problem.
But then again, I learned a long time ago that just because someone is in a leadership position does not make them a leader.
So this week's entertainment for me involved being - according to a worthy commenter on the DT - reported to yes the Po- lice for one of my tamer and completely justifiable comments reminding the general population that one cannot expect the So malign ian rapists because with a rate of 50-60% marriage between first cousins they are unfortunately inbred and thus incapable of understanding that while in the UK they get free board, lodging, mobiles and access to nubile young white girls, in the US if they try to run over a policeman they will be shot dead.
I haven't been visited by the boys in blue yet, but I no longer have access to DT comments.
Have you read about the recent study by Academics from Cambridge University, among others, regarding FGM, suggesting that the term "mutilation" is problematic? They posit that the custom should perhaps be termed “female genital practices", thus reflecting cultural nuance. I don’t suppose I’m the only one to suspect this charming euphemism is designed to protect those very electorally critical communities to which you refer in your excellent essay.
This is brilliantly sharp on how moral panics work in the algorithm age. The 'kicking the dog' framing - targeting those who cant bite back - really captures something I dunno most people miss about performative politics. When I was in school the zero-tolerance stuff always caught the easy targets while real problems got ignored. The bit about euphemism being a habit of mind not just annoying speech is genius.
If "leaders" were to identify a real problem, then they would be obligated to actually address it. Much more convenient to invent a problem; it can never be fixed so you can trot it out anytime to deflect from a real problem. Meanwhile (to mix metaphors) you kick the can down the road on the real problem.
But then again, I learned a long time ago that just because someone is in a leadership position does not make them a leader.
So this week's entertainment for me involved being - according to a worthy commenter on the DT - reported to yes the Po- lice for one of my tamer and completely justifiable comments reminding the general population that one cannot expect the So malign ian rapists because with a rate of 50-60% marriage between first cousins they are unfortunately inbred and thus incapable of understanding that while in the UK they get free board, lodging, mobiles and access to nubile young white girls, in the US if they try to run over a policeman they will be shot dead.
I haven't been visited by the boys in blue yet, but I no longer have access to DT comments.
Interesting.
Have you read about the recent study by Academics from Cambridge University, among others, regarding FGM, suggesting that the term "mutilation" is problematic? They posit that the custom should perhaps be termed “female genital practices", thus reflecting cultural nuance. I don’t suppose I’m the only one to suspect this charming euphemism is designed to protect those very electorally critical communities to which you refer in your excellent essay.
This is brilliantly sharp on how moral panics work in the algorithm age. The 'kicking the dog' framing - targeting those who cant bite back - really captures something I dunno most people miss about performative politics. When I was in school the zero-tolerance stuff always caught the easy targets while real problems got ignored. The bit about euphemism being a habit of mind not just annoying speech is genius.