The Real Cultural Prejudice of the English-Speaking World

Today I came across this song on YouTube.

(Claire Laffut - Hiroshima)

I really like it. I know most people reading won't necessarily have the same taste in music as me, so I understand if people think it's garbage pop music. That's not so much the point though. It's a really summery, well-produced song. The sort of thing you could easily imagine blaring out of speakers and radio stations over the summer months. However.. the song's not sung in English, so it probably won't be.

For all the cries of racist Britain and lowbrow inwards-looking Brexiteers this issue never really pops up. You'd think a Remainer may have chastised us all for this by now. After all, it is the one real cultural prejudice that runs right through the English-speaking world like a stick of rock ..but no.

No matter how good, catchy or beautiful a song is; if it isn't sung in our language it isn't getting in.

This is something that first really occurred to me back in the MySpace days. I remember coming across bands and artists from other countries, singing in their native language; some of which were really good. Up until that point I'd always just assumed that Europeans couldn't make decent music (seeing Eurovision didn't help that perception). Then I realised: "Oh right, if it's not sung in English it won't get played here, and I'm probably never gonna hear it."

Even countries with good records of chart success, like Sweden, needed to sing in English - be it their catchy pop like ABBA or Ace of Base, or their great bands like The Cardigans and The Soundtrack of Our Lives.

It's a bit unfair for them, but it's also quite boring for us. I like hearing stuff in different languages. It's interesting. It's a bit exotic. I have no idea what the song above is about at present, but it's still enjoyable; if anything it adds an element of mystique. (I don't understand what the birds outside are twittering about, but I still enjoy their song.) Plus, I've probably learnt more French from looking up what songs mean than I learnt from all the lessons I had at school.

We're denying ourselves all these fruits. We'll take the wine, and the food, and the clothes, and the cars, but not the music.

Weird that it takes a Brexiteer like me to make this point. Again, you'd think a few EU flag-wavers would have pulled us all up on this by now, but I guess they're just not as immersed in European culture as they seem to think they are ;)

Drink Driving, Compulsory Vaccination

Just a rough post.

We've seen in recent weeks arguments being made in the media that vaccination should become compulsory; with being unvaccinated compared to drink driving.

Obviously I'm quite against compulsory vaccination. The body is sovereign in my eyes, and I would hope most other people share this view. However, the mainstream media can be quite persuasive, and as almost all people support things like drink driving laws the comparison can be quite difficult to counter when first confronted with it.

[We've dealt with similar arguments over the course of this crisis. With other things, such as mask mandates, being compared to seatbelts and other restrictions placed on driving.

See: Drive an inch, take a mile ]

Ultimately, unless you're a total libertarian, where you draw the line on state infringements upon liberty will be a personal judgement. It's a balance, which we all weigh up slightly differently. However, some infringements are clearly more serious than others and you would hope that most people would be honest enough to at least acknowledge this.

Most people instinctively understand that compulsory vaccination is much more serious an intrusion than restrictions on driving a car whilst under the influence of alcohol. It can be hard to explain this understanding though when caught on the hop. Especially when the argument is reduced to a simplistic:

"Well, you accept this one infringement in the interest of public safety; therefore the argument is settled and you must accept this new infringement too."

 

A little list..

Anyway, I've been listing the reasons why the two things are different. In the hope that I can put together a simple and robust refutation.

For the time being it's fairly rough, but I'll note it down now as a springboard towards something a bit more neat and fully formed.

• Being stopped from driving whilst drunk doesn't endanger you, whereas with vaccines there's a risk to health, however small.
• It sets a precedent for other compulsory medication. Why not mandate flu vaccines for similar reasons?
• Once the right to say "No" is removed it will result in diminishing standards (see the cake example below).
• Cars are heavy machines that amplify human agency - meaning it's harder for an individual to choose to avoid an oncoming high speed vehicle. Whereas you can choose who you do and don't interact with.
• Likewise the weight of a car makes death or injury highly likely. Whereas the risk of death or injury from walking past someone and potentially catching a virus is incredibly low.
• It's almost impossible to prove that someone has caused death by infecting another person with a virus - especially when you take into account the fact that both people choose to interact with each other. Whereas if a drunk driver runs someone over culpability is obvious.
• Restricting people's access to work, healthcare, supermarkets, etc because they're not vaccinated causes harm. Particularly if people are not free to set up their own healthcare, work, supermarkets, etc that do not require vaccination.

There are also some other, more politik reasons.

• The people pushing this have lied from day one - sorry, I'll put that a little more kindly - have continually shifted the goalposts. "Three weeks to flatten the curve" .. and so forth.
• Once adults have been forced, children will be next.
• The conflation of vaccines with vaccine passports and apps means social credit systems and the like will become more realistic possibilities.

Returning to the idea that it's virtually impossible to convict someone in court of murder via accidental flu spread. It's conversely the case that people have been prosecuted for forcing medication on people against their will.

So to allow the latter to prevent the former is just absurd.

*******************

the cake example..

(click to enlarge)

Facebook, and political opportunity

I haven't posted on here in a while. In fact, the reason I'm posting today has made me aware of how much my style of output has changed on here over the last 18 months. I seem to be posting individual article-style posts these days, when originally the intent was to do daily journal style entries.

Anyway, what's spurred me on is that one of my older posts received a comment. It was a post about the the last general election - particularly the Hartlepool seat. The commenter simply asking about one of the candidates.

https://freckledmonkey.blogspot.com/2019/12/hartlepool-table-time.html

Reading back the post reminded me of something I'd forgotten. Namely that in a few of the constituencies I was looking at independent candidates did quite well, and their relative success correlated well with their good Facebook showing. Indicating that they'd managed to get their votes by tapping into an avenue of self-promotion that the more mainstream candidates had failed to penetrate.

Politically active people tend to be a bit more Twitter focused. Whereas Facebook remains the domain of familial normality. The candidates had seemed to do well on Facebook by concentrating on local issues, and staying away from mainstream politics.

Reviewing all this at the time I suggested that there was a big possibility for mainstream parties if they could somehow tap into this way of reaching people. Obviously though it's hard for people affiliated with mainstream parties to detach themselves from national politics the way an independent candidate can. So it's difficult.

Facebook users tend to be quite conservative - and I don't mean politically conservative, but conservative in what they choose to like, share and discuss. As Facebook relates so heavily to real world social life, people have a tendency to avoid anything that looks 'weird' or 'controversial'. It's very much like a school playground where standing out is a major concern. Unlike say Twitter, where users can interact relatively anonymously with people they'll probably never meet in real life anyway.

So on Facebook it's very much mundane group think. With local gossip and 'keeping up appearances' being the mainstay of the interactions.

Consequently it can be difficult for political candidates to build up a base there. A person in a predominantly Labour area may vote Tory, but they'll refrain from liking a Conservative page for fear that others may see it and judge them. Likewise they'll be unlikely to share a post for similar reasons. Sensibly avoiding (from a social point of view) any controversy.

There's also the fact that many people find things like politics boring or annoying. So they don't want their timelines filled with a stream of political proselytising.

The local candidates seemed to do well by sharing 'local gossip' type stories on a regular basis - a new restaurant opening up, a shoplifter getting caught, a heart-warming story about some local football team - that type of stuff. In effect taking part in the local conversation, building up a following playing to that. Then cashing in on that reach come election time.

I should really have kept looking at this issue in order to develop some kind of 'Facebook strategy' for reaching people. However, the events of the last year have been something of a distraction. With local elections looming I should really try to refocus a little. In my area we have the Tees Valley mayoral election, and the election of the Police and Crime Commissioner coming up. I doubt too much can be gleaned from these contests. Still it might be worth paying attention.

The nearby Hartlepool by-election is also worth keeping an eye on.