https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside...-the-far-right
F#%$ off you racist piece of $#!¥
Printable View
https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside...-the-far-right
F#%$ off you racist piece of $#!¥
Talking to yourself again Randy ?
What have I ever done or supported that is racist? I want everyone to be treated the same regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, continent or anything else.
Bannon and the Mercers found their way into Europe through the UK.
So Le Pen etc (specifically mentioned in the article) had nothing to do with it?
Turn your blinkers off.
I get that it's fun to wail on the Brits: we drive on the left and didn't get the Euro and Brexit and stuff like that, and our flag isn't even a tricolour knock-off.
But the reality is that many countries in Europe have a far right problem that is at least as bad as ours, if not worse. If 200+ dead children on Utøya isn't proof of that then I don't know what is.
If you want to see the consequences of complacency and pretending 'it can't happen here', then just look at America.
"I know the instant I hear their accent that they're thieves and troublemakers"Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
In that same paragraph they also mention Farage. We know Bannon met with JRM and another Tory MP. His company Breitbart has had a higher profile in the UK these past few years and his patrons the Mercers were actively promoting Brexit. Bannon would've been a nobody with no capital in Europe, were it not for the fact that he's associated with the nativists' greatest victories in recent memory, namely Brexit and Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The Utöya and Oslo attacks claimed 77 lives. The 200+ figure is for non-fatal injuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Nobody's doing that.Quote:
If you want to see the consequences of complacency and pretending 'it can't happen here'
That's NOT what I said!Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
It's an apt summary, though.
If there's any truth in that I've just lost all remaining respect for Boris.
You still had respect for Boris prior to reading that?
Some.
I decided to let RB's astonishing statement speak for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Indeed its extremely disappointing, Boris has always been vocally from the liberal wing of the Party, pro immigration. Unlike the nasty Remainer at top now who has long been anti-immigrant.
Boris has always been a racist liar with no principles. Your remarks only speak toward your own naïveté.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I should let it go but he fascinates me. I want to scoop out his brain and do tests on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
No great mystery though. Boris is the kind of man that RB likes, and we know from previous discussions that RB is simply not very good at recognizing racism, in the UK or elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
[Citation Needed]Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Boris Johnson has a singular talent: even when he's right, he's wrong.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...iculous-still/
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj5_8zoW4AAx3zS.jpg
How is he wrong there? Are you saying we should ban it?
The issue is the manner in which he's made the argument. It's childish and irresponsible.
We need to hold the leaders of our nation to a higher standard of decency. He should be positioning his argument to be more inspiring, positive and influential; expressing the positives and aiming to persuade Muslims that it isn't necessary. Not pathetic attempts at humour like this that serve only to alienate people further and cause more division.
It's basic leadership, and he continues to fail and embarrass at every opportunity he's ever been given.
What's childish about it? Talking about Danes being nude? While giggling at nudity may normally be a childish matter he was not doing that and the contrast between tolerating that and not tolerating the burka, as despicable as we may find it, is a good one.
He seems to be addressing a serious issue, what was funny?
Trying to shut down conversations on serious topics leaving them only to the two extremes is irresponsible. Responsible people need to grasp the nettle otherwise the calls for us to join other liberal European nations in illiberally banning it are only going to escalate.
Saying Muslims that wear burqas look like "letter boxes" and "bank robbers". I expect more from the leaders of our nation. Don't you? Or is this where the bar is now?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you honestly think somebody wearing a burqa is somehow going to change their mind after reading that? Are they really going to think "Oh shit! OMG, I look like a letter box. LMAO, thanks Boris!". No, it's going to make the issue worse, because it'll piss off a proportion of the Muslim community and inflame the ignorant/intolerant/racist.
I didn't say there was anything funny about it; although it's clear he tried to inject some humour into it with those remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Who's trying to shut the conversation down?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
They do look like that. It is alien, unnatural, deeply sexist, morally repugnant and their choice.
If people want to wear that nonsense in public then we are one of an increasingly small number of liberal European nations that tolerate such illiberal garb. Why should we not speak honestly about how it looks? It's not a joke to say they look like that, they do.
I don't think it was aimed at people wearing burqas do you?
It's not just racists that have an issue with the burqa which is why so many liberal European democracies have banned it. It is illiberal, dehumanising and oppressive sexist garb that camouflages somebody in public so they can't be seen. Why shouldn't we say they look like bank robbers when they do?
Letter boxes was wryly amusing in a sad way but an apt analogy.
Oh I see. Alien and unnatural. So we can start calling people who wear turbans 'towel-heads' now, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't want people to wear them; but that's not my point. My point is the manner in which an MP, a leader and representative of our nation, has tried to lead this argument. It's secondary school stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's pathetic and a desperate attempt to get back into the limelight.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No we can't refer to turbans as that any more than we can refer to hijabs as that. They're not the same thing and not remotely in the same league. Are we speaking in a context of Denmark, France and many other neighbouring liberal European democracies having banned the turban? No we are not. The turban does not dehumanise and hide the person wearing it. The burqa does.
The hijab is what is comparable to the turban not the burqa or niqab. Do you understand the difference?
But it's alien and unnatural.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Yes, RandBlade - I do understand the difference, and as I've said - I rather people didn't wear burqas.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
What I'm trying to understand from you is why you think it's perfectly acceptable for a leader of our nation to attempt to lead an argument in this way. You wouldn't expect a business leader act in this way, so why a politician?
You've said it's not acceptable for certain things - so please explain to me what the criteria are that make it acceptable for our MPs to name call, point and laugh at citizens of our country.
Please, I'm all ears.
No it isn't. It is perhaps alien if you're not used to it but hair coverings are perfectly natural. Facial covering and dehumanising people, especially in such a misogynistic way is not natural.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Business leaders don't generally getinvolved in political controversies and quite frankly I have more respect for businessmen than politicians ;). I would expect it from comedians on the other hand.Quote:
Yes, RandBlade - I do understand the difference, and as I've said - I rather people didn't wear burqas.
What I'm trying to understand from you is why you think it's perfectly acceptable for a leader of our nation to attempt to lead an argument in this way. You wouldn't expect a business leader act in this way, so why a politician?
My general assumption is that it always is acceptable to make fun of people unless there is a compelling reason not to otherwise. Humour is a good vent on pent up feelings. I'm happy to call people "gun nuts", "Bible bashers" or plenty of other things. Even the name Tory which I identify with is of derogatory origin meaning a bandit or thief. One of my favourite comedians is Russell Howard who has a habit of mocking people.Quote:
You've said it's not acceptable for certain things - so please explain to me what the criteria are that make it acceptable for our MPs to name call, point and laugh at citizens of our country.
Please, I'm all ears.
I think certain words especially if there is a history of negative abuse with it - especially with something outside of their control. EG abusive words like the n-word are not acceptable. Looking like a post box is neither outside of someone's control nor a term with negative historical abuse behind it.
I disagree with your definitions. A turban is alien unnatural to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Why would we want to hold politicians, the people who are running our state, to a lower standard than those running a business? I see no benefit in doing so. We should expect, nay demand, leadership based on decency, objectivity and honesty.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So 'towel head' and 'camel jockey' are fair game, is what you're saying?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Or is it only OK when it's a fresh new insult that hasn't had a chance to take off? Does it only become a problem if "letter box" and "bank robber" become the new 'paki' or 'chink'?
Or would it perhaps be best for Boris to stop being an attention seeking cunt?
Fair enough, maybe you're just less enlightened ;). I am struggling to understand what is unnatural about it, we have our own versions of headwear and it's not that long ago that all gentlemen were expected to wear headwear in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
I see an advantage to giving politicians, the people who debate controversial matters, greater leniency in the topics they discuss and how they do so. That is not a new principle it is centuries old, that is the principle behind why a politician in Parliament has total immunity from libel laws for instance. Politicians are debating issues that business leaders are not and that means sometimes saying the unsayable because it actually needs to be said. Sometimes it means crossing the line because if you are never crossing it then you're surely never reaching it either.Quote:
Why would we want to hold politicians, the people who are running our state, to a lower standard than those running a business? I see no benefit in doing so. We should expect, nay demand, leadership based on decency, objectivity and honesty.
No.Quote:
So 'towel head' and 'camel jockey' are fair game, is what you're saying?
Well indeed, if they become like that then they should be addressed. But Johnson while perhaps a tad wry with the letterbox remark was making a serious remark about looking like a bank robber, which he spent paragraphs addressing the importance of seeing people's faces in face to face conversations. Did you read the full article? I don't find the truth insulting, especially when it is relevant and when dressing like a bank robber is a choice people are making to oppress women and that is being outlawed across much of Europe.Quote:
Or is it only OK when it's a fresh new insult that hasn't had a chance to take off? Does it only become a problem if "letter box" and "bank robber" become the new 'paki' or 'chink'?
It's perfectly possible to express 'the truth' and lead a rational, persuasive and inspiring argument for change without resulting to name calling and/or desperate populist attempts to get back into the limelight. It's not an unreasonable expectation.
Tolerate this, at any level, and you end up with the likes of Bannon leading the debate.
No shut down debates on issues like this and you lead to people like Bannon leading the debate as they're the only ones talking about it.
But I didn't say shut down the debate.
No you just want to prevent people talking about the importance of seeing faces because someone is dressed like a bank robber.
No I don't.
So you don't object to the term bank robber?
I do object to it when it comes from an MP, yes. Haven't we been through this?
My position is very clear, unlike yours. I want the debate to continue; but I want it to be done with decency and for us to be lead by example. I don't want it to be conducted around senseless name calling, else, as I've explained, if we tolerate it now it can lead to significant problems e.g. Bannonites, division, hatred and taking us further away from positive change actually happening.
I believe you think it's acceptable. I don't. Simple.