May's out. Who's in?

[RandBlade]

Leaving this here without comment: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...23/london.race

So about scientologists . . . are they a race? If I make fun of Xenu am I racist?

[RandBlade]

How racist is this?

[RandBlade]

Does seem to be very odd.

Reading it, it seems less odd. Theresa May didn't go to Obama's state banquet so the precedent was there not to send the Home Secretary. Don't know why, you'd think they would go.

If only Theresa May had not had any reason to go to any other state banquets we'd be in a better place ...

[Unheard Of]

Do you think Lewkowski is aware of his own racism?

[RandBlade]

Do you think Scientology is a race?

[Steely Glint]

Randblade, why are you so keen on this line of argument? Do you think it's good?

Because even if we all concede your point that his islamophobia does not meet the definition of racism - which, to be clear, we won't because it's stupid - you're still left with, well... Islamophobia? You're investing all this effort in providing that Johnson's prejudice is religiously rather than racially motivated, but... why? Do you think establishing that he demeans and abuses people on the basis of their religion rather than their race going to make us all go "why yes, this is the guy we want as PM". Because it's not.

He's still a nasty little shit whichever way you look at it, so what's your angle?

[RandBlade]

If you define opposing the burqa as Islamophobic then I call Islamophobia meaningless.

I've opposed extremist religions and religion in general my entire life without it ever being called racism before extremist Islam (and Islam in general) got involved. So yeah, I call bullshit on protecting extremists pseudo-religious bullshit "racism".

As for "why" . . . attacking religions is perfectly OK with me, attacking races is not. Can you comprehend the difference? A race is part of who you are and you have no control over, no different to gender or sexual orientation. A religion is a belief system and should be protected no more than other belief system. Extremist religions should be afforded no more protection than extremist political ideologies.

The burqa is not a religious garment anyway. It is a misogynistic and extremist one and not really any different to people wearing KKK garments or other extremist garb.

[RandBlade]

Oh sorry I missed a question. Yes obviously I think this line is good, that's why I used it. It's not new either. I'm 37 on Monday and I've been strongly anti-religion since I was in high school about 25 years ago now. I have argued vehemently against religions when we had religious debates on the predecessor GT/Infogrames/Atari forum for 19 years, since before the Community Chat forum was even created [it was religious arguments as much as political ones that drove that forums creation originally].

I don't see why we should kowtow to any religious cult or extremist ideology. I wouldn't to fascists, I wouldn't to communists, I wouldn't to Scientologist or Baptists . . . give me one damn reason why extremist Islam should be treated as a "race" and not with the same contempt I would deal with any other ideology/religion.

If you give me a good reason why we shouldn't treat this equally with the others then I'll consider your absurd complaints about "racism" against extremism to be anything other than a pathetic watering down of the word to the point it means nothing whatsoever.

[Steely Glint]

Yeah, I'll remember that next time you pretend to care about anti-antisemitism in order to attack Labour or Corbyn.

There's a clear difference between attacking a religion for it's beliefs and practices, and just attacking members of the religion. You don't catch me going around calling Christians 'cross-fuckers' or something, then act like I've made a principled stand against Catholic patriarchy. I also do not attack victims of said patriarchy then pretend I'm attacking the patriarchy itself.

[RandBlade]

Anti-semitism is unacceptable if it is attacking "Jews" or "Zionists" [meaning Jews] using racist epithets or stereotypes that aren't true to tarnish all Jews. Just as tarnishing all Muslims using epithets or stereotypes that aren't true is unacceptable. It is attacking all members of the religion rather than specific beliefs or individuals or practices.

Where have I called Muslims 'moon-fuckers' or anything like that?

I'm glad you drew a distinction between "beliefs and practices" and just "members of the religion". What was attacked was a practice and not members so is fine by your definition.

Good for you that you do not attack victims of Catholic patriarchy. I on the other hand have made and laughed at many an 'altar boy' joke. Are jokes about Priests and Altar Boys any different or more acceptable in your eyes?

How do you get a nun pregnant?

Spoiler:

Dress her up as an altar boy

Is that racist? Unacceptable?

[Flixy]

Anti-semitism is unacceptable if it is attacking "Jews" or "Zionists" [meaning Jews] using racist epithets or stereotypes that aren't true to tarnish all Jews. Just as tarnishing all Muslims using epithets or stereotypes that aren't true is unacceptable. It is attacking all members of the religion rather than specific beliefs or individuals or practices.

I thought you just said you can't be racist when it's against a religion?

Note that this started when you said Boris calling all Muslim women letterboxes wasn't racist.

[RandBlade]

No. Actually when this started I said that Boris didn't call all Muslims women letterboxes and that to say or imply that all Muslim women wear the burqa would be false and racist.

Attacking a belief or a principle of a religion is never racist. To falsely imply something about all members of a religion . . . racist is the wrong word but since we lack a better one for it I understand use of the word racist there. But that's not the case here. The two key concerns are that it is false [attacking something real isn't wrong] and said about all even though its not true.

I despise racists. What Johnson wrote wasn't racist. It is false and racist to say that Muslims have to wear the burqa. That is extremist nonsense propaganda used by the so-called far right and so-called Islamic extremists.

I would find it wrong to say "Muslim women are letterboxes". Most Muslim women rightly don't wear the burqa. Indeed, I find it very derogatory to suggest there is a race born to wear burqas. Which race is that?

[Aimless]

RandBlade, you're not the leader of a fucking nation, nor should you ever be.

[RandBlade]

And you keep ignoring my points while I address yours. Guess you'd rather throw out baseless ad hominems than actually address the subject.

[Aimless]

And you keep ignoring my points while I address yours. Guess you'd rather throw out baseless ad hominems than actually address the subject.

Johnson has said and done things that shows he is not worthy of leading a nation. It is irrelevant whether or not he can meet your personal standards, because, frankly, your standards are very low—at least from a leadership pov. I am an atheist, but I would not support a leader that routinely treats catholics with contempt, or uses racist expressions, or lies to the public, or screws over citizens who are in precarious situations. Perhaps that sort of conduct counts as A+ leadership in whatever Little Englander geographical armpit you've made your home, but it is not fitting conduct for the leader of a healthy, well-functioning nation. Johnson chose to publicly disparage a vulnerable and almost exclusively non-white group, making them the target of national contempt for egotistical political reasons. I have no love for the burqa, but this sort of conduct is unbecoming of a leader. Had he been the leader of a non-white nation and singled out a white Mormon minority for disparagement in a similar fashion, I would have regarded it as being equally unbecoming. The appropriate standard for a PM's conduct is not the same as that you which might apply to a racist pub-owner in Preston, or to an irreverent musical. Talk about setting a low bar—absolutely fucking pathetic.

[RandBlade]

You haven't shown how Johnson "routinely treats Catholics [or any other religion] with contempt", or uses racist expressions [except for a misguided article 2 decades ago he apologised for over a decade ago]. He doesn't lie to the public, or any of the other garbage you're spouting.

You can say as many ad hominems as you want, doesn't make them anything other than fabricated nonsense.

The fact that burqa wearers are non-white is neither here nor there unless you're racist. The burqa is no different to the KKK outfit and worn for similar reasons. They should both be treated with the same level of utter contempt.

If he'd mocked people wearing KKK hoods would you have been outraged?

[RandBlade]

If you think mocking medieval cults with ignorant and extreme practices is out of order I'm wondering where you draw the line. What about mocking anti-vaxxers? Is that racist?

Is this racist:

[Hazir]

You haven't shown how Johnson "routinely treats Catholics [or any other religion] with contempt", or uses racist expressions [except for a misguided article 2 decades ago he apologised for over a decade ago]. He doesn't lie to the public, or any of the other garbage you're spouting.

You can say as many ad hominems as you want, doesn't make them anything other than fabricated nonsense.

The fact that burqa wearers are non-white is neither here nor there unless you're racist. The burqa is no different to the KKK outfit and worn for similar reasons. They should both be treated with the same level of utter contempt.

If he'd mocked people wearing KKK hoods would you have been outraged?

He actually wrote an article that was so racist he apologized for it? So, he wrote something, probably edited it and then submitted it for publication? Strangely enough you have pushed me towards thinking about him as a racist more than his un-stateman like jokes. A stupid tweet, an off the cuff joke is one thing. A published article is an entirely different beast.

[RandBlade]

He published an article which wasn't objected to at the time. He used words that were inappropriate but they sarcastic [Guardian says mocking] towards Blair and not intended to be racist which is probably why they were not objected to at the time. It was only years later the words got taken out of context and complained about at which point they were immediately apologised for.

[Hazir]

He published an article which wasn't objected to at the time. He used words that were inappropriate but they sarcastic [Guardian says mocking] towards Blair and not intended to be racist which is probably why they were not objected to at the time. It was only years later the words got taken out of context and complained about at which point they were immediately apologised for.

You do understand that apologies do not oblige forgiveness? That very often how we callously say offensive stuff about absent marginalized people is most toxic?

[Aimless]

He doesn't lie to the public, or any of the other garbage you're spouting.

He was caught on camera lying about his racist fear-mongering about Turkey, you numpty:

Twitter Link

The fact that burqa wearers are non-white is neither here nor there unless you're racist. The burqa is no different to the KKK outfit and worn for similar reasons. They should both be treated with the same level of utter contempt.

This is one of the dumbest things you've ever said, and that's a high bar to clear. The fact that a person attacks specific outgroups is absolutely relevant; Johnson's intention was to bolster his political standing by emboldening white English racists through attacks on a stigmatized non-white outgroup. More to the point, those who wear the burqa in the UK are more appropriately regarded as victims of an oppressive culture--unlike enthusiastic, willing members of the KKK. It is pretty gross for a putative leader to target victims of oppression in national media, and it is even more gross for you to equate victims with perpetrators.

If he'd mocked people wearing KKK hoods would you have been outraged?

If you think mocking medieval cults with ignorant and extreme practices is out of order I'm wondering where you draw the line. What about mocking anti-vaxxers? Is that racist?

Is this racist:

I enjoy cocktails and inappropriate jokes, but I don't think a doctor should drink margaritas and re-enact Eddie Murphy's Raw while at work. The standards for the leader of a nation are not the same as those we might apply to a third-tier stand-up comedian. Your position on this matter is indeed reminiscent of the way in which closet bigots in the US have justified their support for Trump and their embrace of a nationwide roster of racists, homophobes, misogynists and (most trendy of all) Islamophobes.

He actually wrote an article that was so racist he apologized for it? So, he wrote something, probably edited it and then submitted it for publication? Strangely enough you have pushed me towards thinking about him as a racist more than his un-stateman like jokes. A stupid tweet, an off the cuff joke is one thing. A published article is an entirely different beast.

https://www.businessinsider.com/bori...19-6?r=US&IR=T

A selection of his PM-quality musings on black people, women, the people of PNG, Malaysian women, gay men. Elsewhere, he has written bizarrely pro-colonial texts dripping with thinly-veiled racial contempt, and, as editor of The Spectator, he sanctioned the publication of an extraordinarily racist article about "thuggery" discussing (among other things) the low IQs and supreme horniness of black people. This man is not a worthy leader; RB's strenuous defense, of the man that represents almost everything that is wrong with British politics, is both hilariously predictable and tragically revealing.

[Hazir]

That's a pretty solid record of bigotry. And of course you're going to claim that you didn't vote for him RandBlade?

[Loki]

He is the leader the Tories deserve.

[Aimless]

It's possible that Johnson may not be a bigot deep down inside, but he enjoys playing to the asshole contingent of the British electorate, which includes a large number of sophisticated and enlightened Spectator-loving bigots.

[LittleFuzzy]

@Unheard Of: Mexico is a nation and hispanic are a race. Trump is racist against hispanics and blacks.

How can you say that? He employs lots of them for minimum wage (or less)

[Aimless]

That's a pretty solid record of bigotry. And of course you're going to claim that you didn't vote for him RandBlade?

RB is an enlightened & free independent, not a member of the Tory party therefore, he can't vote for Johnson until the next general election, presumably following a few months of hand-wringing and soul-searching.

[RandBlade]

RB is an enlightened & free independent, not a member of the Tory party therefore, he can't vote for Johnson until the next general election, presumably following a few months of hand-wringing and soul-searching.

No hand-wringing or soul-searching necessary. I like Johnson. He is a great one nation liberal Conservative.

[Flixy]

No hand-wringing or soul-searching necessary. I like Johnson. He is a great one nation liberal Conservative.

Have you read that business insider article? And you really think someone like that would make a good PM?

[RandBlade]

No I've not.

[Aimless]