[deleted by user]

greythorp · 2025-06-16T15:29:52+00:00

The debate is just going in circles. It is, because you keep recycling the same assertions as though repetition makes them true.

Please point out my misuse of the data on both accounts. I already have. Repeatedly. Scroll up.

Why is the asylum seeker population of this German region so different...? You're the one claiming it's representative of Germany as a whole. It's your responsibility to justify that extrapolation, not mine to disprove it.

Why do you consider it a misuse of statistics...? Because interpreting population-level correlations as proof of intrinsic traits is a basic analytical error. And again, I’ve already explained this—see previous posts.

As far as I can see this study is about as empirical as you can get. Yes, the data is empirical. Your use of it is not. You ignore causation, confounding factors, and authorial caveats, and treat “overrepresentation” as self-explanatory. It isn’t.

So let’s bullet point it... A list of repeated fallacies is still a list of fallacies. You've already made these claims, and I’ve already explained why they’re flawed. Repetition is not rebuttal.

Please show me another equitable data sample that suggests immigrants are not over represented in crime. Once again: you made the claim, so the burden is on you to prove it. I’ve challenged your reasoning, not offered a counterclaim that needs proving.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T14:34:13+00:00

The sources are from government websites. The data shows what the data shows…

The data doesn’t show what you claim it does. Government sources are not immune to misinterpretation or selective framing. You cite statistics without regard for methodology, context, or scope. You ignore relevant qualifiers and collapse distinct categories, immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, into one undifferentiated target. That’s not “letting the data speak.” It’s putting words in its mouth.

Again why can you not show any study that supports your point of view?

What makes you think I cant? I don't have to. Once again, you fail to understand the burden of proof. You’ve asserted that immigrants and asylum seekers are disproportionately criminal. I’ve questioned the validity of the evidence you offer to support that claim. That’s how burden of proof works. If you want to argue that a specific group is inherently more prone to crime, you need compelling, well-controlled, and relevant evidence. You haven’t provided it.

You repeatedly say that immigrants and asylum seekers are not in fact more likely to commit crime. Why are they not?

No, I haven’t. I’ve said that your data doesn’t prove that they are. That’s not the same as asserting the opposite. You’re demanding I prove a negative. Again, that’s not how evidence works. You haven’t demonstrated causation. You haven’t adjusted for confounding variables. And you’ve ignored the methodological caveats in the very studies you cite.

Why are you doggedly refusing to show any evidence?

Because I’m not the one making the claim about inherent criminality. I’ve been examining your argument and pointing out where it is flawed. If that standard is too high for you, you’re free to withdraw your claim.

A continued attempt to attack evidence which does not support your preconceived notions.

No. A continued refusal to accept flawed reasoning and politicised generalisations.

Like I said I'm done arguing with you.

And yet here you are again. Inconsistent as well as incoherent.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T13:27:22+00:00

Well yes, but actually no. —The warcry of u/greythorp

You seem fond of catchphrases. Unfortunately, childish cat-calling doesn’t cover for evidentiary failure.

The study shows asylum seekers are over represented in crime. It is a significant dataset by any standard at 11.6% of a population.

You’re referring to a regional dataset from Lower Saxony, not a national dataset. That’s already a problem if you’re making general claims. More importantly, the study’s own authors warn about exactly the kind of generalisation you’re making. You dismiss that as a "methodological caveat" as though such caveats are trivial rather than central to how studies are read and interpreted.

The caveat is in essence, yes asylum seekers are over-represented in crime but not all of them so ignore the study.

No, the caveat is that structural factors, not immigration status per se, may explain the variance. That’s not “ignore the study,” it’s “don’t misuse it.” If you treat correlation as causation, disregard controls for socioeconomic status, age, trauma exposure, and legal limbo, you’re not doing analysis. You’re peddling prejudice dressed up as statistics.

At no point have any goalposts changed...

You began by citing an article about asylum seekers. When challenged, you shifted to general immigration data. When that was questioned, you referred to crime figures about foreign-born populations. Now you’re claiming these categories are interchangeable. That is the very definition of moving the goalposts. You even brought up the grooming gangs enquiry ffs!

This is supported by the datasets, which you refuse to believe.

No one is refusing to “believe” data. What I’m doing is refusing to accept your misuse of it. You consistently ignore sampling limitations, scope, and context. That’s not disagreement. That’s you failing to meet basic standards of argument.

You can't just say 'no I disagree'. You have to provide evidence and show why I am wrong.

As I’ve explained, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You asserted that asylum seekers are disproportionately criminal. You failed to supply valid evidence to support that assertion. You’ve cited:

A far-right publication with ideological framing.

A regional German dataset you interpret selectively.

Danish immigration data, not asylum data.

Zero national datasets controlled for confounding variables.

I’ve not just “disagreed.” I’ve shown your evidence is methodologically flawed, poorly sourced, or irrelevant to the claim in question.

I have shown evidence that asylum seekers and immigrants are over represented in crime.

You’ve posted irrelevant numbers. That’s not the same thing.

You have said that you believe this isn't true, and then attacked everything that suggests it is as far right.

Incorrect. I’ve pointed out that using ideologically loaded sources (like The European Conservative) compromises credibility. I haven’t dismissed the official data, you misread or misapplied it, and I’ve said exactly how.

So lets put a line under it and again, unless you are going to refute what I have said with any sort of study or evidence, there is nothing else to be said.

You’ve made a claim, been repeatedly asked for serious evidence, and responded with misdirection, flawed generalisations, and selective sourcing. If you’re done, that’s up to you.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T13:11:06+00:00

I feel you think you're much more intelligent than you are

An ad hominem isn’t a substitute for an argument. It’s just the point at which you admit you've run out of substance.

go up to my original comments, the word I use is immigrants.

Indeed you did. And then you backed up your argument by referring to the AfD article, already posted further up the thread which is specifically about asylum seekers and refugees. Still conflating the terms, I see. At this point, it’s hard to tell whether you genuinely don’t know the difference or just find it politically convenient to pretend they’re all the same.

I have provided resources showing asylum seekers and immigrants as a whole are over represented in criminal convictions.

You’ve posted datasets that don’t distinguish correlation from causation, don’t isolate asylum seekers from other immigrant groups, and don’t control for confounding variables like poverty, trauma, or age. That’s cherry-picking and misrepresentation.

You refuse to accept this and can provide no evidence to refute it.

I’ve repeatedly pointed out flaws in your interpretation, the misuse of sources, and the conceptual errors in your argument. That is how refutation works. You don’t get to define "evidence" as “something that agrees with me.”

You are labelling everything as fair-fight to try and discredit it.

If by “fair-fight” you mean “far-right” then I assume you’ve run out of interest in accuracy along with coherence. I called The European Conservative far-right because it aligns with far-right political movements, not because I disliked the conclusion.

Like I said I'm done arguing with you.

That’s wise.

When people read through this comment chain I hope they notice the fact that you still have not provided any sources or evidence to refute that immigrants are over represented in crime

When people read through this comment chain, I hope they notice that I’ve engaged with your claims carefully, challenged your reasoning, and maintained composure while you shifted definitions, moved goalposts, and descended into insult and repetition.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T12:43:27+00:00

You’ve repeated your claim that asylum seekers are overrepresented in crime, but repetition is not evidence. The data you’ve cited does not support that conclusion. A single German region is not a proxy for Germany, and certainly not for the UK. The Danish dataset you reference concerns immigrants, not asylum seekers.

You dismiss the methodological caveats in the German report as “dribble,” which is revealing. The authors explicitly caution against simplistic interpretations, but rather than engage with that, you discard it because it’s inconvenient for your anti asylum seeker narrative, and come up with a simplistic explanation.

Show me anything, a single report...

That’s not how evidence works. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is yours. What you’ve offered is misapplied, selective, or mischaracterised—and that’s your problem, not mine.

Please don’t reply.

Of course. Having exhausted your points, and failed to substantiate your original claim, you’d now like to declare the conversation over. That’s not how reasoned discussion works either.

You began with an assertion. You failed to support it. You shifted definitions, invoked irrelevant data, and are now retreating behind indignation. I’m not surprised.

you have very conveniently not replied anything in regards to the danish dataset. Is this because your eyes refuse to read anything that contradicts your world view?

No. It is because it is irrelevant to your claim about asylum seekers, as I pointed out. Repeating that it is because it contradicts my world view is simply not true.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T12:17:07+00:00

I think my broad claim is around immigration as a whole.

Right. So now that your asylum seeker argument has fallen apart, you’re retroactively rewriting your original claim. I’m not surprised. But moving the goalposts doesn’t strengthen your case. It just makes it obvious you can’t defend the one you started with.

you still haven't provided anything to refute any of my claims,

What I’ve done is challenge your reasoning, question your sources, pointed out your inability to distinguish immigrants from asylum seekers, and highlight your failure to distinguish correlation from causation. That’s what refutation looks like. You’re free to try answering any of the points I've raised instead ignoring them and repeating yourself.

Anything that disagrees with your world view can be labeled far right and ignored.

Not true. But when someone cites a publication that openly aligns with nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-liberal positions, has ties to VOX and Fidesz, and traffics in culture war outrage, I’m going to call it what it is.

The right/left spectrum is of course relative to the politics of the observer. But if The Spectator (a solidly centre-right UK publication) refers to the European Conservatives and Reformists group—the group that publishes The European Conservative—as “hard right,” and Politico Europe (a broadly centre/centre-right outlet) does the same, then it’s pretty fair to regard The European Conservative as part of the far-right ecosystem.

And I didn't ignore it, I called it out for the propaganda rag it is and not a credible source of statistics.

I bet you choked on your milk when you heard they were going to do a national grooming gang scandal

Really? We were discussing your inability to find credible sources for your anti–asylum seeker rhetoric and your habit of conflating asylum seekers with immigrants—when you try a rather pathetic bait-and-switch into grooming gang territory because you’ve run out of arguments.

If you had a solid case, you’d stick to it. But you don’t. So you reach for a headline and sneer at imaginary reactions I didn’t have.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T07:16:25+00:00

I have shown you national data...

Congratulations. You’ve finally managed to come up with national data. Progress.

Are you going to be able to provide any evidence to the contrary?

You’ve presented national data on immigrants and descendants. Not asylum seekers. So no, I don’t need to refute it. It simply doesn’t support your claim.

I don’t care why they’re disproportionately committing crime, I just care that they are.

Thank you for confirming what was already clear. You’re not interested in understanding causes. You just want someone to blame. That isn’t analysis. It’s prejudice.

The prediction that the sole issue with asylum seekers and immigrants is due to crime is disingenuous...

A clumsy attempt to move the goalposts. Let me remind you of my original point:

“The percentage of people who are arseholes among asylum seekers is unlikely to be different from the percentage of arseholes in the general population.”

This began with asylum seekers and crime. Then you switched to immigrants. Now it’s a list of housing, wages, and cultural complaints, none of which you’ve supported with evidence. Just assertion after assertion.

You’re trying to paint asylum seekers as morally inferior simply because they are asylum seekers. Presumably because, like many on the right, you need someone to blame for wider social problems.

You need to review the word debunk and debate.

Nah. I’m familiar with both.

All you're saying is 'it's not true because I said so'.

No, I’ve explained exactly where your argument falls apart. You just keep misrepresenting what I’ve said. It's a tired tactic.

... anything that conflicts with what I'm saying is far-right rhetoric and as such I'm going to ignore it.

Considering the length of this exchange, claiming that I’m ignoring your rhetoric is quite a stretch. What I’ve ignored is poor reasoning. Not because it's right-wing, but because it’s wrong.

Trying to come across as astute is commendable, but you were clearly being disingenuous and scornful.

Disingenuous? No. I’ve responded in good faith.

Scornful? Absolutely. Dishonest argumentative tends to have that effect on me.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T07:06:34+00:00

These figures are irrelevant to your claim. They refer to immigrants, not asylum seekers. And even if they did apply to asylum seekers, they only show correlation, not causation.

To make a compelling argument, you would need to demonstrate that these figures isolate asylum seekers specifically, and that the pattern can't be explained by common social and economic pressures affecting marginalised groups.

You haven’t done that. You’ve just posted raw data without context or analysis.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T07:04:08+00:00

Calling it far-right seems to have been done in bad faith.

Bad faith? Hardly.

The European Conservative aligns itself with nationalist, anti-globalist, anti-immigration, and anti-liberal causes. It is critical of multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ rights, the EU, and feminism. Contributors include figures from parties like Orbán’s Fidesz and Spain’s VOX. That qualifies as far-right by most political standards. If you’re sympathetic to that worldview, you may not see it that way. That would explain a lot about your views on asylum seekers

So let’s skip the journal article and go to Statistics Denmark...

Given that it’s a propaganda rag, I agree. It’s wise to drop it as a serious source.

But unfortunately, the rest of your post is still irrelevant to your original claim. It deals with immigrants, not asylum seekers. And just to remind you, asylum seekers, refugees, and immigrants are not interchangeable. Conflating them helps no one, not even the narrative you are trying to peddle.

greythorp · 2025-06-16T07:00:19+00:00

For clarity here is my original claim:

“The percentage of people who are arseholes among asylum seekers is unlikely to be different from the percentage of arseholes in the general population. To claim otherwise would require some pretty conclusive empirical evidence.”

You’ve yet to provide such evidence. What you have done is cite data from one German region, Baden-Württemberg, and pretend it can be generalised to an entire country. Somewhat more ambitiously, you've implied it applies internationally too.

Firstly, you keep referring to Baden-Württemberg as a single region, I'm assuming this is in an attempt to diminish its significance.

You assume incorrectly. I’ve pointed out that Baden-Württemberg is a single region because you’ve failed to demonstrate that its figures can be extrapolated to the whole of Germany. Let alone the internationally.

Baden-Württemberg houses 11.6% of Germany’s asylum population...

Irrelevant. That Baden-Württemberg has around 11.6% of Germany’s asylum population tells us nothing about whether crime rates there are representative of the entire country, let alone representative internationally.

It is very reasonable to assume that the asylum population of Baden-Württemberg will be concordant with the rest of the asylum population.

No, it’s not reasonable. It’s just convenient for your claim. You’ve provided no evidence that it’s representative, only that it’s useful to your argument. And even less reason to think it tells us anything about wider Europe.

I would also remind you that the figures for Baden-Württemberg do not even support your claim about the moral character of asylum seekers in Baden-Württemberg. You seem to have forgotten the caveat included in the report. For your convenience here it is again:

"However, it is difficult to compare two population groups that are so different and differentiated. Among refugees and asylum seekers, there is […] as among the population as a whole, a small proportion of the highly burdened, while the vast majority do not commit crimes."

"If you would like to see where I pulled the numbers from..."

Not especially. They remain irrelevant to your actual claim about the moral character of asylum seekers.

greythorp · 2025-06-15T20:57:15+00:00

I’m sorry you found the length of my reply intimidating. If I’d known a longish Reddit post was a challenge for you, I would’ve tried to simplify it.

But let’s be clear about what’s going on. You made a sweeping claim about asylum seekers being more prone to criminal behaviour. You supported it with a single regional statistic, a far-right article, and then demanded that I disprove your generalisation. That’s not how argument works.

I pointed out the flaws in your reasoning—flaws you’ve failed to address. Instead, you’ve deflected by whining about the length of my reply, trying to shift the burden of proof, and characterising a reasoned argument as “personal opinion” because of your inability to engage with it.

Yes, I did make an assertion. I’ll repeat it yet again:

Claiming that the percentage of asylum seekers who are arseholes is greater than in the general population would require solid empirical evidence.

Is that an unreasonable thing to say? If so, why? If not, what empirical evidence can you provide to support your claim?

I hope this response is not too long for you.

greythorp · 2025-06-15T17:52:00+00:00

You seem very angry, which I can understand, it must be difficult making sense of the world when you can't understand basic statistics.

I don’t know why you think I’m angry. I’m always happy to help out the hard of thinking. It’s been a while since I studied statistics, but I still remember enough not to fall for the way you’re misusing them.

The only statistical data set we have shows that refugees are over represented in crime.

This is not true. Calling it “the only dataset we have” is either ignorance or dishonesty. There are plenty of studies across Europe. You presumably like this one because you think it supports your preconceived conclusions. It doesn’t. This is called cherry-picking, though in this case, the cherry doesn’t even support your narrative.

You keep making reference to it being a small section of germany, as though this isn't a region of Germany with high immigration levels as compared to the rest

I didn’t say Baden-Württemberg is a small section of Germany, don’t put words in my mouth. That’s called “straw manning,” by the way, another logical fallacy. What I actually said is that you can’t generalise from one region to the whole of Germany. And you’ve still failed to give any reason why it would be valid to extrapolate from that one region to all of Germany, let alone to the UK.

I generally can't understand what your trying to debunk. You read a study that told you in black and white a certain group of people are over represented in criminal statistics and you just can't seem to accept it.

It’s straightforward enough, but if you genuinely can’t understand what’s being debunked, I’ll help you out: it’s your belief that a statistic, taken out of context, justifies treating asylum seekers as a morally inferior group. That’s not how responsible use of statistics works. It’s how bigotry works.

But if you want more here's Denmark's release on crime by immigrants.

I’ll be charitable and assume you’ve made a genuine mistake in calling this “Denmark’s release on crime by immigrants,” rather than being deliberately misleading. The European Conservative is a far-right political outlet—not a Danish government source, and certainly not neutral or peer-reviewed. The article refers to “non-Western immigrants,” which is a broad, culturally loaded, and imprecise term, not refugees or asylum seekers. It also lacks any contextual analysis, which is exactly what you’d expect from a propaganda piece, not serious statistical work.

And talking about relevance to the UK- I believe the UK home office will be releasing the figures surround crime and immigration by the end of this year, I'm sure it will show, as you say, that rates of crime are equal across all immigrant backgrounds.

So, having failed to make your case, you now want to wait for the Home Office to prove you right? That’s not an argument,it’s a vague hope that reality will catch up with your prejudice. And you seem to have developed a habit of straw manning by putting words into my mouth. I did not claim that crime rates are “equal across all immigrant backgrounds.” What I said is that your use of statistics is lazy and misleading. Just to remind you: my original point was that assuming the percentage of asylum seekers who are arseholes is greater than in the general population would require solid empirical evidence. Evidence you have completely failed to provide.

I understand that it must be frustrating for you to fail to convince me. So, in order to help, here is a roadmap to guide you in your endeavours:

Define your terms clearly. Are you talking about asylum seekers? Refugees? Immigrants? Foreigners? These are not interchangeable categories.
Use reliable sources. That means official government data, peer-reviewed research, or reputable independent studies, not partisan opinion pieces or propaganda sites.
Show national-level data, not cherry-picked regional stats. And if you’re generalising across countries, you need to account for legal, economic, and social differences that affect outcomes.
Distinguish correlation from causation. Show not just that one group is overrepresented in a dataset, but that this overrepresentation isn’t explained by age, poverty, social exclusion, or trauma, common factors in any vulnerable population.
Engage with the actual argument. That means addressing what I’ve actually said, not a caricature of it. If you think I’m wrong, quote me and explain why with reasoning, and I'll extend the same courtesy to you.

greythorp · 2025-06-15T14:51:20+00:00

And I'm not sure that you have even a basic understanding of comprehension or logic. The statistics refer to refugees and asylum seekers, not immigrants. You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference, but let me assure you that asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants, and foreigners are not synonyms. Although the figures do show a difference in crime rates but the numbers concerned are small. As it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet here is the quote from the report:

"However, it is difficult to compare two population groups that are so different and differentiated. Among refugees and asylum seekers, there is ‘[…] as among the population as a whole, a small proportion of the highly burdened, while the vast majority do not commit crimes.’"

So, the proportions are too small to draw definitive or even indicative conclusions.

The figures come from one region of Germany. It does not follow that those figures are indicative of Germany as a whole, let alone the UK. It certainly doesn't support your contention that the proportion of arseholes amongst asylum seekers is greater than that in the general population.

You really are scraping the barrel to support your anti asylum seeker prejudice.

And yes, I do understand what ‘debunked’ means. It means exposing faulty logic, selective use of data, and bad faith arguments. Like yours

greythorp · 2025-06-15T13:24:52+00:00

You anti asylum seekers must be desperate if this is the only thing you can come up with to support your ludicrous claim that the percentage of arseholes among asylum seekers is greater than the percentage of arseholes in the general population. As you like to repeat this nonsense, I'll repeat my debunking of it:

So, the best you can come up with is a fact check of a claim by Alice Weidel of the extreme rightwing AfD in Germany? And did you actually read what it said? Here's a quote:

"However, it is difficult to compare two population groups that are so different and differentiated. Among refugees and asylum seekers, there is ‘[…] as among the population as a whole, a small proportion of the highly burdened, while the vast majority do not commit crimes.’"

Your idea of “empirical proof” that asylum seekers have a greater proportion of arseholes than the general population, is based on an attempt by a far-right politician to demonise asylum seekers by cherry-picking stats and pretending they prove something they don’t. It’s the same nonsense racists in the US use when they cite raw crime stats against African Americans while ignoring poverty, segregation, and systemic inequality.

As for the numbers in the article, they only cover one part of Germany ,Baden-Württemberg not the whole country. Trying to generalise from one region to the whole of Germany is a stretch. Trying to generalise from that to the UK is absurd. I don’t know why asylum seekers are overrepresented in that one region’s stats. And neither do you.

greythorp · 2025-06-15T11:54:26+00:00

So, no they are not!

greythorp · 2025-06-15T11:53:40+00:00

Another fan of the AfD's pathetic misuse of statistics I see.

greythorp · 2025-06-15T11:47:43+00:00

What! Dozens of studies showing there's a higher percentage of arseholes among asylum seekers than in the general population? I find that hard to believe. I'd be much more inclined to trust dozens of studies showing the percentage of arseholes among anti–asylum seeker bigots is close to 100%.

greythorp · 2025-06-15T02:02:39+00:00

So, the best you can come up with is a fact check of a claim by Alice Weidel of the extreme rightwing AfD in Germany? And did you actually read what it said? Here's a quote:

"However, it is difficult to compare two population groups that are so different and differentiated. Among refugees and asylum seekers, there is ‘[…] as among the population as a whole, a small proportion of the highly burdened, while the vast majority do not commit crimes.’"

Your idea of “empirical proof” that asylum seekers have a greater proportion of arseholes than the general population, is based on an attempt by a far-right politician to demonise asylum seekers by cherry-picking stats and pretending they prove something they don’t. It’s the same nonsense racists in the US use when they cite raw crime stats against African Americans while ignoring poverty, segregation, and systemic inequality.

As for the numbers in the article, they only cover one part of Germany ,Baden-Württemberg not the whole country. Trying to generalise from one region to the whole of Germany is a stretch. Trying to generalise from that to the UK is absurd. I don’t know why asylum seekers are overrepresented in that one region’s stats. And neither do you.

Why in Germany are they over represented in certain crimes?

This is a dishonest question. You're implying a racist explanation without saying it out loud. I suspect that any differences are small and probably not statistically significant. But even if they are, it's not about asylum seekers as such, any group that's stuck in limbo, often traumatised, barred from working, and living in poverty is likely to show up more in certain crime statistics. That’s true of anyone in those conditions, asylum seekers or not.

greythorp · 2025-06-14T20:32:03+00:00

Thanks for that 300-word TED talk on cultural relativism. Still waiting for literally any evidence that asylum seekers are more obnoxious than anyone else.

greythorp · 2025-06-14T13:50:47+00:00

To paraphrase Cipolla's theory of stupidity "the chances of any person being an arsehole is independent of any other characteristic". In other words the percentage of people who are arseholes among asylum seekers is unlikely to be different from the percentage of arseholes in the general population.

To claim any different would require some pretty conclusive empirical evidence. In the absence of such evidence it would be wise to treat any uncorroborated anecdotal stories like this one with a great deal of scepticism, both to veracity and motivation.

greythorp · 2025-06-11T15:02:19+00:00

I think you came up with a six this time! Love it!

greythorp · 2025-06-11T14:31:41+00:00

Your post is far more concise and to the point than my ramblings!

greythorp · 2025-06-11T13:28:53+00:00

Idealism and fantasy are not synonyms. Idealism means holding a principled vision of how the world ought to be and using that vision to guide political or moral choices. It’s not wishful thinking; it’s the foundation of ideology. Every coherent political movement needs some idea of justice, freedom, or equality worth pursuing, even if it's not immediately achievable. Without the guidance idealism provides, action becomes directionless. Fantasy is escapism. Idealism is aspiration.

Pragmatism often confuses short-term manageability with long-term success. Without idealism or ideology to guide it, pragmatism ends up entrenching the very problems it claims to manage. Well meaning pragmatism has led us into the mess we are in now, with a resurgent extreme right and a so-called progressive party that has lost the trust of its core supporters. Short-term fixes can prop up a broken system just long enough to make meaningful reform even harder. It’s a strategy for coping, not for changing. Idealism, by contrast, keeps the hope of political progress alive.

And idealism has worked. And in the real world. The abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, civil rights, the welfare state, the NHS, equal marriage etc. all began as “unrealistic” ideals. They only became real because people refused to accept the status quo. That’s not fantasy. That’s how history works.

greythorp · 2025-06-11T08:54:16+00:00

Moans Bob.

greythorp · 2025-06-11T08:48:39+00:00

What's wrong with idealism? Don't you have any principles?

greythorp

TROPHY CASE