For those who like to deny the link between anti-immigration rhetoric and racism. This fellows quite open about it - and he's ahead in the polls.
And once again, we see the pathetic little trick from the usual quarters of conflating concerns with immigration and racism. It is possible to conflate any two views if you look for a person who fits the profile.
That one person just happens to be the leader of one of the main parties in Holland. And of course the correlation keeps popping up...
So, are you accusing me of being racist by expressing concerns with border controls and immigration to this country? If you are where's your evidence? If not, then of what relevance is the continued posting of links to people who are other than to smear by association?
And if William Henwood isn't a racist, then I'm a banana.
Yes, William Henwood is a racist.
Yes, a lot of UKIP members are small-minded, racist xenophobes.
But as Steve has just pointed out, your repeated, deliberate conflating of racism/xenophobia with legitimate fears about overpopulation and uncontrolled immigration makes you no better than those UKIP members.
What is so hard to understand about this, Biff Vernon?
Are you really so damned stupid that you can't understand the difference between a person who is worried about the number of people living on an overcrowded island, and a white person who doesn't like black people?
Last edited by UndercoverElephant on 27 Apr 2014, 11:26, edited 1 time in total.
For those who like to deny the link between anti-immigration rhetoric and racism. This fellows quite open about it - and he's ahead in the polls.
And once again, we see the pathetic little trick from the usual quarters of conflating concerns with immigration and racism. It is possible to conflate any two views if you look for a person who fits the profile.
That one person just happens to be the leader of one of the main parties in Holland. And of course the correlation keeps popping up...
And the same applies to you. You've just offered the following as an argument: "Some people who are anti-immigration are also racists, therefore people who are concerned about immigration are racists."
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Are you really so damned stupid that you can't understand the difference between a person who is worried about the number of people living on an overcrowded island, and a white person who doesn't like black people?
No, I'm not damned stupid and neither am I so rude as to ask such a question and furthermore I've never said that anyone on PowerSwitch is racist.
I do think that support for UKIP and their policies risks lending succour to those who are racist.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Are you really so damned stupid that you can't understand the difference between a person who is worried about the number of people living on an overcrowded island, and a white person who doesn't like black people?
No, I'm not damned stupid and neither am I so rude as to ask such a question and furthermore I've never said that anyone on PowerSwitch is racist.
Then I don't think you are following what is going on in this thread. I want to be able to voice a very real and legitimate concern about overpopulation in the UK (there are too many people already living here) and about uncontrolled immigration (there are too many people coming here, or at least too many people with the right to come here and nothing anybody can do to stop them). I want to be able to talk about this without people continually implying that this means that actually I'm a racist/xenophobe, and that what I'm saying about overpopulation and immigration is just a cover for my underlying racist/xenophobic motives.
As usual, you've managed to be offensive without intending to be offensive. That doesn't mean you aren't being offensive. I am NOT a racist. I believe it is absolutely wrong to discriminate against people based upon their race, or their sexuality or anything else that they have no control over and which has no direct effect on anybody else. I am not making this up; it's actually true. If you don't want me to get angry/rude, then please consider when posting in this thread whether you are posting something which insinuates that other people (notably Steve and myself) are racists. If you think there is a possibility that your posts can be interpreted this way, then make it clear that you are NOT trying to imply this, and then we won't get angry/rude.
This debate is just as ridiculous in the wider public sphere as it is in this thread. Just as much idiotic, irrational, fact-free nonsense is being posted by both sides. That this UKIP candidate came out with another "bongo bongo land"-type comment and then, apparently, couldn't understand why it was offensive, is one side of it. But there's another side that is just as silly. Let's take Lenny Henry's comment, for example. He's complaining that there aren't enough black people in the arts? Hold on a moment. Isn't he himself black? And didn't he himself have a very successful career in the arts? I don't recall any significant racism holding Lenny Henry back - he succeeded as a comic because people of all races thought he was funny. He succeeded on merit - he was good enough, so he made it. So what, exactly, is he saying? Is he implying that he only succeeded as a black person because he is so dazzlingly brilliant that the discrimination wasn't enough to prevent him succeeding?
I want to live in a genuine meritocracy. I want people to succeed or fail on their abilities, and not be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. But that cuts both ways. I don't want to see non-black people discriminated against because they aren't black - and I don't want to see black people given special treatment because they are black. Is this too much to ask?
I'll give you a very recent example - two of them actually - that demonstrate the problem from the other side. Both from the world of football. Football is an interesting case in the UK, because the black community is vastly over-represented as players. There is a far greater proportion of black players to non-black players than the ratio of black people in the general population. You can make your own minds up as to the reason for this, but the fact remains undeniable.
This doesn't mean mindless racism doesn't exist, the most ludicrous example I can think of being Crystal Palace chairman Ron Noades publicly proclaiming that black people weren't as good at football as whites at a time when Crystal Palace were at their most successful of any time their history, largely because they had two of the best strikers in country - Ian Wright and Mark Bright, both of whom are black.
But there is a flipside to this.
Last week Manchester City midfielder Yaya Toure came out and declared that the only reason he has not been recognised as being as good as Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo is that he comes from Africa. What's the problem with this? Toure isn't as good as Messi and Ronaldo. Lionel Messi is, pretty much indisputably, the best footballer who has ever lived. He's in a class of his own. Toure isn't recognised as being that good because he isn't that good, and coming out and publicly complaining that his own brilliance is being ignored because of widespread racism in the football world is not helping his cause. It just makes him look silly.
Another example was the situation a couple of weeks ago regarding Chris Hughton, manager of Norwich City, and black. Norwich are about to be relegated from the Premier League after a dreadful run of results. Hughton must have known he was about to lose his job. After all, every other team at the bottom of the league had already sacked their manager this year (white, all of them.) So Hughton decided to make the following public statement: "It will really be a shame if I lose my job, because I'm the only black manager left in the league." What was the point in saying this? If he wasn't trying to use the colour of his skin to gain special treatment then why come out with a comment that makes it look that way? Norwich sacked Hughton a few days later, and it had nothing to do with the fact he is black.
Racism is a bad thing.
Accusing people of racism when they aren't actually racists is also a bad thing. Using accusations of racism in order to try to "score points" in an argument, where no actually racism has been implied, is a bad thing.
Using the fact that you are black to try to gain an advantage where none is deserved on merit alone is also a bad thing.
People should be allowed to succeed or fail on their abilities. They should not be discriminated against based on race, and they should not be granted special treatment either.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Then I don't think you are following what is going on in this thread. I want to be able to voice a very real and legitimate concern about overpopulation in the UK (there are too many people already living here) and about uncontrolled immigration (there are too many people coming here, or at least too many people with the right to come here and nothing anybody can do to stop them). I want to be able to talk about this without people continually implying that this means that actually I'm a racist/xenophobe, and that what I'm saying about overpopulation and immigration is just a cover for my underlying racist/xenophobic motives.
I think concern about immigration is simply a desire to protect the concentration of wealth on this island (and in the south east) by force. I also think, separately, that the arguments used to justify this position (the undeserving poor, 'culturally backwards nations' etc.) are racist. Given that the protection of the UK's privilege by force is a difficult moral position to take it has to be justified by arguing that we somehow deserve it. Racism is merely the simplest way in which this may be shown, by assuming the superiority of British culture, industry or whatever over those poor Eastern Europeans which is why it is so often found in anti-immigration rhetoric.
I think we can also say that those fears UE mentioned were not legitimate - they were scaremongering that was obviously not based on facts or evidence. What, then, were they based on?
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Then I don't think you are following what is going on in this thread. I want to be able to voice a very real and legitimate concern about overpopulation in the UK (there are too many people already living here) and about uncontrolled immigration (there are too many people coming here, or at least too many people with the right to come here and nothing anybody can do to stop them). I want to be able to talk about this without people continually implying that this means that actually I'm a racist/xenophobe, and that what I'm saying about overpopulation and immigration is just a cover for my underlying racist/xenophobic motives.
I think concern about immigration is simply a desire to protect the concentration of wealth on this island (and in the south east) by force. I also think, separately, that the arguments used to justify this position (the undeserving poor, 'culturally backwards nations' etc.) are racist. Given that the protection of the UK's privilege by force is a difficult moral position to take it has to be justified by arguing that we somehow deserve it. Racism is merely the simplest way in which this may be shown, by assuming the superiority of British culture, industry or whatever over those poor Eastern Europeans which is why it is so often found in anti-immigration rhetoric.
I think we can also say that those fears UE mentioned were not legitimate - they were scaremongering that was obviously not based on facts or evidence. What, then, were they based on?
Ah...right...clever piece of rhetoric there.
So, if it's a middle class person expressing concern, then they are trying to protect their wealth. But if it's a lower working class person expressing concern due to imported workers undercutting their wage/job so that they are no longer able to feed and house themselves on the new lower pay limit, then they are just an ignorant racist thug right?
stevecook172001 wrote:Ah...right...clever piece of rhetoric there.
So, if it's a middle class person expressing concern, then they are trying to protect their wealth. But if it's a lower working class person expressing concern due to imported workers undercutting their wage/job so that they are no longer able to feed and house themselves on the new lower pay limit, then they are just an ignorant racist thug right?
bullshit.
Uh, no. No class distinction was made or intended.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Then I don't think you are following what is going on in this thread. I want to be able to voice a very real and legitimate concern about overpopulation in the UK (there are too many people already living here) and about uncontrolled immigration (there are too many people coming here, or at least too many people with the right to come here and nothing anybody can do to stop them). I want to be able to talk about this without people continually implying that this means that actually I'm a racist/xenophobe, and that what I'm saying about overpopulation and immigration is just a cover for my underlying racist/xenophobic motives.
I think concern about immigration is simply a desire to protect the concentration of wealth on this island (and in the south east) by force.
Eh? You're talking politics. I am talking ecology and economics. There are simply far more people living on this island than the natural resources can support, and the only reason this has not already resulted in a catastrophe is that we can afford to import resources/food from outside. But what are we doing to be able to afford this? Answer: a bloated "financial services" industry that is now entirely dependent on printing fiat money, and which is ultimately doomed because the outside world will eventually get sick of being paid in worthless digits or bits of paper. And then we'll be f***ed, Mr Sir.
And the more people that come here, the more unsustainable the situation will be, and the worse will be the crash when it comes. And in the intervening time there is a very real problem for working class people being undercut in the employment market, which benefits the rich and shafts the poor.
I also think, separately, that the arguments used to justify this position (the undeserving poor, 'culturally backwards nations' etc.) are racist.
But nobody has mentioned those arguments apart from YOU.
I think we can also say that those fears UE mentioned were not legitimate - they were scaremongering that was obviously not based on facts or evidence. What, then, were they based on?
Too many people in the UK is scaremongering? Bullshit.
People coming here and willing to work for low wages (including below the minimum wage) is scaremongering? Bullshit.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
The question of why some countries are richer and some poorer is a very complex topic ... it is to do with the poor countries in question being totally culturally backwards, and that is not the fault of people in the rich countries.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
I also think, separately, that the arguments used to justify this position (the undeserving poor, 'culturally backwards nations' etc.) are racist.
But nobody has mentioned those arguments apart from YOU.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
The question of why some countries are richer and some poorer is a very complex topic ... it is to do with the poor countries in question being totally culturally backwards, and that is not the fault of people in the rich countries.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
I also think, separately, that the arguments used to justify this position (the undeserving poor, 'culturally backwards nations' etc.) are racist.
But nobody has mentioned those arguments apart from YOU.
Short memory, UE.
No, Mr Sir, accurate memory. YOU keep bringing this up, not me. I have never mentioned any "undeserving poor", and I have mentioned "culturally backwards nations" ONCE, and even that one occasion it was not "in support" of any other argument. It is simply a fact. Do you wish to deny it? Do wish to deny that Zimbabwe, for example, is culturally backwards? Go on. I dare you.
Stop misrepresenting people. All you are doing is proving my point, which is that certain people are utterly incapable of holding a rational/fair debate on this topic, and YOU are a prime example. You are even worse than Biff Vernon, which is quite an achievement.
UndercoverElephant wrote:
As usual, you've managed to be offensive without intending to be offensive. That doesn't mean you aren't being offensive. I am NOT a racist. I believe it is absolutely wrong to discriminate against people based upon their race, or their sexuality or anything else that they have no control over and which has no direct effect on anybody else. I am not making this up; it's actually true. If you don't want me to get angry/rude, then please consider when posting in this thread whether you are posting something which insinuates that other people (notably Steve and myself) are racists. If you think there is a possibility that your posts can be interpreted this way, then make it clear that you are NOT trying to imply this, and then we won't get angry/rude.
Eh? How can my post, which included the phrase "I've never said that anyone on PowerSwitch is racist" possibly be interpreted as implying that I think you are racist? What have I said that was offensive?
