What can we extrapolate from the deadlock in UK local elections?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

KingsGambit:
It really, actually is.

Then you should have no problem providing proof or anything in terms substance to your claims. Then again, you're not bothered as you said above. So why are you here then?

Ninjamedic:

KingsGambit:
It really, actually is.

Then you should have no problem providing proof or anything in terms substance to your claims. Then again, you're not bothered as you said above. So why are you here then?

What is this need you have of me to provide you with proof of my posts? Are you unable to google "labour antisemitism"? Read yourself, come to your own conclusions. When did I become beholden to you to research contemporary politics on your behalf?

In my experience, there is nothing I could say, do or link to that would ever make you reconsider your stance and I don't understand why I have to justify myself to you. I haven't asked you to justify yourself, so why are you demanding I do? Am I not allowed to have an opinion without your approval? How about this, you provide me with proof of labour's antisemitism as an exercise in researching why someone with an opinion different than your own reached it.

KingsGambit:
Read yourself, come to your own conclusions.

I have, and I see the Tory party as a vastly larger threat. You've decided you're not arsed defending you own arguments though, so I'm not sure what you're looking for here.

When did I become beholden to you to research contemporary politics on your behalf?

Well, this is a public discussion forum, people have disputed your reaching claims, and the only citation in the entire thread was handwaved by yourself.

KingsGambit:
How about this, you provide me with proof of labour's antisemitism as an exercise in researching why someone with an opinion different than your own reached it.

What if your opinion can only be attributed to ignorance or bias, though? What if additional research actually makes your position even more unbelievable?

Ninjamedic:
Well, this is a public discussion forum, people have disputed your reaching claims, and the only citation in the entire thread was handwaved by yourself.

It is a discussion forum. Why am i obliged to provide you with "proof" to take part in a discussion? I'm not allowed to DISCUSS the issue? WTF are you on about? Why do I need to provide proof of anything? What if my opinion is formed by REAL LIFE and discussion with people? I don't understand your attitude...people cannot participate in a discussion on a discussion forum without citing shit? WTActual Fuck? Am I supposed to prepare a dissertation which you'll grade? How many words? Do I need to quote famous commentators to get your permission to post an internet forum? What sources will you accept, I don't want to use sources that don't meet your exacting standards of journalistic integrity.

Try discussing. I'm not asking you to prove anything, WhyTF do I need to justify myself to you? You research your own news, I'm not your search engine. If you want a discussion, fine, present an argument and we'll discuss. I'm not doing a homework assignment for you tho, so stop asking please. If all you're going to do is accuse me of things and make demands, kindly leave me alone.

KingsGambit:
[ Why do I need to provide proof of anything? What if my opinion is formed by REAL LIFE and discussion with people?

How else are you going to try to win me over? Keep up with this childish rhetoric? Again, people have disputed your claims and provided arguments against yours, if you're not going to bother responding to them, why should we bother with yours then?

Try discussing.

We have, as you can see above.

WhyTF do I need to justify myself to you?

FOR YOU HAVE ACTED AGAINST THE COURT OF OPINION ORTHODOXY.

KingsGambit:
Based on your post, you don't actually know what xenophobia means. But it's typical to just throw around grand accusations at people you don't know. Go ahead and do the nazi thing, it's almost all of page one and no godwin's law yet.

Then what else should we call it when you express generalised and prejudicial dislike of foreigners?

It really, actually is.

Is it? How do you know? Because you read a newspaper article saying so?

CM156:

So would you think it fair to call this a "qualified success" for Labour? I'm also wondering how much of the UKIP vote any of the major parties might absorb in the next general election?

I think 'qualified success' is fair on the national level. It is their failure to capture Wandsworth and Westminster that has become the major focus, though (and not just for the media; for figures within Labour, too)-- which is overshadowing the fact that they made gains overall.

I'm not sure about the UKIP vote. Polls indicate that Labour voters were far likelier to vote to remain in the EU, which would give some indication that ex-UKIP voters may migrate to the Conservatives. But there's precious little to go on.

trunkage:
I think you're forgetting the fact that conservatives aren't concerned about equality, fairness or being nice. Its not a core value. Not being a bigot is a Labour value. Holding a Tory up to that standard wont work.

It's similar to some people who called out SJWs for not tolerating them (for their bigoted speech). It doesnt matter that they were bigots first. Its not their core value. It is a core value of SJWs and thus calling them out is more effective.

Labour are held to a higher standard by some, I would agree, but not for all. Others may want to hold parties to the same standard, but merely do not hear about what the other parties get up to, because it's not being reported.

How many outlets have covered the Conservative councillor calling for the death penalty for homosexuality? It's just not covered.

KingsGambit:
It is a discussion forum. Why am i obliged to provide you with "proof" to take part in a discussion? I'm not allowed to DISCUSS the issue? WTF are you on about?

Oh, you're allowed to discuss. Nobody disputed that.

You're not entitled to be taken seriously, though, and nor should you be if you present no evidence whatsoever. It's just blather.

Silvanus:
You're not entitled to be taken seriously, though, and nor should you be if you present no evidence whatsoever. It's just blather.

Let me see your evidence then.

Agema:
Then what else should we call it when you express generalised and prejudicial dislike of foreigners?

I never expressed any prejudice or dislike for anyone. I was talking about why many voters are anti-islamic immigration. That's not xenophobia. There is a migrant crisis in Europe right now in case your head has been in the sand, and xenophobia is not the only explanation for why people don't want that problem in the UK. I accuse you of xenophobia, there, how's that for an unfounded, baseless accusation. Now you defend yourself. This is such an interesting discussion! (Why isn't there a roll-eyes emoji when you need one?)

Say something interesting, talk about my point or move on, I'm not entering a childish name-slinging match.

Ninjamedic:
How else are you going to try to win me over?

I'm not trying to win you over, I'm only explaining myself and the general sentiment as to why so many hate labour. I don't want to win you over, I never had any intention of winning you over and I know for certain nothing I say could win you over. I posted to answer the OP, namely why the "left" aren't "romping home" and I've answered that.

KingsGambit:
I never expressed any prejudice or dislike for anyone. I was talking about why many voters are anti-islamic immigration. That's not xenophobia.

You said:

The british people do not want a million muslim refugees draining our already crippled social services, education system, housing system, raping their daughters, bombing their children, stabbing their police officers, ramming their civilians and radicalising their sons. Anti-immigration is a valid stance grounded on reality-based facts and isn't strictly xenophobia.

Firstly, you are suggesting all the theoretical million Muslim refugees are a societal drain, rapists, cop-killers and terrotists; and secondly you then word it to suggest these "facts" are your personal opinion. You could instead word it something like: "Given recent events regarding Islamic radicalisation, terrorism, child abuse and struggling social services, the British people are concerned that high Muslim immigration will bring huge problems for the nation". That defuses both the problems of your statement.

Say something interesting, talk about my point or move on, I'm not entering a childish name-slinging match.

Neither do I.

But ultimately, we're all responsible for how we express ourselves. I think we really do need to be careful about how we talk about these things, because it's a very sensitive issue where a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation can exist. I have nothing else to assess but what you communicate to us, as I don't know anything else about you. When you write something that looks like it could have come straight off the BNP or EDL website, I feel that's worth pointing out.

That doesn't mean I think you are a xenophobe. It means nothing more than it is: I think what you wrote was at best tactless or clumsy. You are free to set the record straight, and I am happy to accept a reasonable explanation - after all, it's not like I never screw up and need to explain myself. Even if you want to just leave it as a mere, huffy denial I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but bear in mind that line of credit rapidly gets exhausted.

Agema:
Firstly, you are suggesting all the theoretical million Muslim refugees are a societal drain...

Are you honestly suggesting that 100s of 1,000s of refugees or immigrants, irrespective of ethnicity, would not put an immense drain on the welfare system? Housing, education, healthcare, law enforcement, benefits, local services, all already under exceptional strain. It isn't relevant about ethnicity, it's a simple issue of numbers and capacity.

Agema:
rapists, cop-killers and terrotists

rapists, cop-killers and terrotists and suicide bomber...and that is just 2017. This is not a matter of my personal opinion, these are documented events from the UK in 2017, and it isn't the full list. All originate from islam. I'm not blaming all muslims, I'm blaming islam. To say it isn't an issue is both gross and part of why there's a disconnect between sides of the political divide.

Agema:
I think we really do need to be careful about how we talk about these things, because it's a very sensitive issue where a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation can exist. I have nothing else to assess but what you communicate to us, as I don't know anything else about you....

That doesn't mean I think you are a xenophobe.

Criticising me on how I write is fine but a separate issue to what I write. I said nothing that was not or that I did not believe to be true. I do note that in today's climate it's very easy to throw around words so I'm glad we can forget name calling, pretend we're civilised, thinking people and trade ideas. The constant bigot, sexist, homophobe, fascist, etc, etc accusations people throw around are tiring whenever any discussion of important issues is brought up. The question in the OP related to why the left didn't storm to victory and I was explaining some of the reasons why.

As I said in a much earlier post, I am generally liberal (in all things but business and military, where I lean right). I would normally vote labour, but Corbyn's labour is a vile organisation I want as far from power as possible. They are the most racist and with policies so detrimental to our country that I'd rather see Tories in No. 10. I don't understand why he didn't stand down after losing the last election, like every other opposition leader does when they lose. But I can only hope for a repeat next time round.

KingsGambit:
Let me see your evidence then.

I already gave a list of instances. You ignored it.

I never expressed any prejudice or dislike for anyone.

You accused refugees of rape and bombing . Not specific ones; you referred to an entire group, grouped together by their religion.

What is this if not prejudice? It's one of the most clear-cut examples possible: horrific accusations levelled at an entire group on the basis of their religion and status.

It was a fucking disgusting thing to say.

Silvanus:

KingsGambit:
Let me see your evidence then.

I already gave a list of instances. You ignored it.

I never expressed any prejudice or dislike for anyone.

You accused refugees of rape and bombing . Not specific ones; you referred to an entire group, grouped together by their religion.

What is this if not prejudice? It's one of the most clear-cut examples possible: horrific accusations levelled at an entire group on the basis of their religion and status.

It was a fucking disgusting thing to say.

I'm not even going to entertain your post. You aren't worth my time. Try reading next time.

KingsGambit:
All originate from islam. I'm not blaming all muslims, I'm blaming islam.

Lol, what?

I've heard this sort of thing before, but I still can't wrap my head around it. What's the difference?

KingsGambit:
I'm not even going to entertain your post. You aren't worth my time. Try reading next time.

I referred directly to what you said.

Are you going to have the disingenuousness to merely pretend that's not true, when anybody can quite simply bring up the original post?

You made the accusation. Not to individuals; you applied it to an entire group. That's what you said. Own it or disown it; don't engage in this flimsy deflection.

altnameJag:

KingsGambit:
All originate from islam. I'm not blaming all muslims, I'm blaming islam.

Lol, what?

I've heard this sort of thing before, but I still can't wrap my head around it. What's the difference?

Islam is a religion, a set of beliefs and ideas. These beliefs come from the Quran, a holy book whose contents are considered the literal word of God as dictated by their prophet. Muslims are the people who believe in Islam.

Islam is a religion like any other. We frequently criticise Christianity, scientology, Mormonism, the amish, etc. But altho you're allowed to say that scientology is batshit, if you say islam is evil and incompatible with Western values, people call you racist, despite that Islam isn't a race as we've just established.

The problem people have is that many on the left are unable to comprehend this difference, so when someone writes Islam, they read "all Muslims".

KingsGambit:
Are you honestly suggesting that 100s of 1,000s of refugees or immigrants, irrespective of ethnicity, would not put an immense drain on the welfare system? Housing, education, healthcare, law enforcement, benefits, local services, all already under exceptional strain. It isn't relevant about ethnicity, it's a simple issue of numbers and capacity
...
This is not a matter of my personal opinion, these are documented events from the UK in 2017, and it isn't the full list.

Firstly, I was not suggesting anything about current affairs, just pointing out how what you wrote came across.

But as you mention it, 1 million refugees would obviously be a considerable challenge for social services - at least, without preparation and investment. Similarly, clearly Muslims have committed crimes and are heavily associated with certain types of crime. These are not controversial or under question. How we choose to talk about it is. Mind you, 1 million refugees (in a short time scale) is not a credible concern now or in the near future.

I'm not blaming all muslims, I'm blaming islam.

This distinction seems a little thin. If Islam is suspect, necessarily all Muslims are too because they all believe in Islam. Similarly the distinction "I'm not blaming psychopaths, I'm blaming psychopathy" as also virtually meaningless, because all people with psychopathy are necessarily psychopaths. (These are in contrast to, say, "I'm not blaming all Americans, I'm blaming the USA" because the USA exists as an entity which can act, via its institutions, independently from its general populace.)

One can certainly see that aspects of Islamic lore can be problematic, but the same is true of any ideology or religion: Christianity, Scientology, socialism, monarchism etc. But many who hold to any broad ideology clearly do not adhere to any or all of the most objectionable elements. Consequently I would think it favourable to put criticisms in ways that do not implicitly condemn people who have done nothing wrong.

KingsGambit:
so when someone writes Islam, they read "all Muslims".

Often because it's intended to be read that way, though. Now, sure, there's always room for legitimate discussion of religions, but we live in a time when much/most legitimate discussion actually isn't, it's an attack. And while Islam isn't a race, it has racial demographics.

Thaluikhain:
Often because it's intended to be read that way, though. Now, sure, there's always room for legitimate discussion of religions, but we live in a time when much/most legitimate discussion actually isn't, it's an attack. And while Islam isn't a race, it has racial demographics.

The argument "Islam isn't a race" is usually a tangential way of dodging accustions of prejudice against Muslims.

Racism is a problem because of resultant prejudice and discrimination. We want to stamp out prejudice and discrimination. All the technicalities that Islam isn't a race are mere nit-picking when the core accusation is prejudice and discrimination against Muslims.

Agema:
One can certainly see that aspects of Islamic lore can be problematic, but the same is true of any ideology or religion: Christianity, Scientology, socialism, monarchism etc.

No, that is absolutely untrue. It is completely untrue to put all these others with Islam. Scientologists are whackjobs and I'm not going to defend a lot of the nonsense in holy books, but Islam is not the same as the others. The terrorist incidents I linked to were not caused by Hindus or Buddhists. Lee Rigby was not beheaded by a Presbyterian and the Ariana Grande concert was not assaulted by Jains. The issue is with Islam specifically, not with other religions.

Most British people did not have an issue when Christians from the continent were entering. There were absolutely problems when eastern europe joined the EU but these were related to economy. Islam is not the same, there is a cultural difference between islamic values (codified in Sharia law) and western democratic values. There is no comparison to be made between other religions and Islam and the idea that "they're all the same" is just not true.

Anyway, I'll discuss politics, I'm not interested in what you do or don't consider "racist". We've already covered that. Your inability or unwillingness to see the point I'm making is the reason the left won't win, why Trump won in the US and the reason Brexit happened, despite my wishes.

KingsGambit:
Anyway, I'll discuss politics, I'm not interested in what you do or don't consider "racist". We've already covered that. Your inability or unwillingness to see the point I'm making is the reason the left won't win, why Trump won in the US and the reason Brexit happened, despite my wishes.

Yes, yes damn those lefties for actually requiring facts and analysis that fits those facts. How dare they not just agree with me or tell me my alternate facts are just as good as reality!

KingsGambit:
Anyway, I'll discuss politics, I'm not interested in what you do or don't consider "racist". We've already covered that. Your inability or unwillingness to see the point I'm making is the reason the left won't win, why Trump won in the US and the reason Brexit happened, despite my wishes.

Yes, yes damn those lefties for actually requiring facts and analysis that fits those facts. How dare they not just agree with me or tell me my alternate facts are just as good as reality!

KingsGambit:
The terrorist incidents I linked to were not caused by Hindus or Buddhists. Lee Rigby was not beheaded by a Presbyterian and the Ariana Grande concert was not assaulted by Jains.

Sure...only, if you wanted to attack, say, Christianity instead, you could have linked to a list of child abuse or murder or whatever committed by Christians instead.

KingsGambit:
Most British people did not have an issue when Christians from the continent were entering.

And Brexit won the popular vote. That an idea is popular does not make it correct.

KingsGambit:
It is completely untrue to put all these others with Islam.

image

KingsGambit:
It is completely untrue to put all these others with Islam.

image

KingsGambit:
No, that is absolutely untrue. It is completely untrue to put all these others with Islam.

In the middle ages, Christians wiped out whole towns and cities. One town in France they slaughtered, the accompanying priest is reputed to have said "Kill them all, God will know his own".

In other words, Christianity assuredly CAN have problems. What we mean is that, overwhelmingly, Christians are not perceived to cause trouble for our society in the same way that Muslims are in the current day. Although I guess there were those priest sexual abuse scandals their churches covered up if we're discussing rape.

Islam is not the same, there is a cultural difference between islamic values (codified in Sharia law) and western democratic values. There is no comparison to be made between other religions and Islam and the idea that "they're all the same" is just not true.

No, they aren't the same, and there are some cultural differences. What I'm saying is there is nothing inherently or fundamentally problematic about Islam. With about 2.5 million Muslims in the UK, a miniscule proportion are driving vans into people or campaigning to scrap democracy, which suggests Muslims are overall highly capable of adapting to Western values whilst retaining their religion. The problem is the few of them that do not and express their discontent so destructively; and yes, I agree that this is currently a problem specific to Islam.

Your inability or unwillingness to see the point I'm making is the reason the left won't win, why Trump won in the US and the reason Brexit happened, despite my wishes.

I know exactly the point you're making and I don't disagree that hostility towards immigrants, particularly Muslims, is a major source of dissatisfaction that has led to where we are now. On the other hand, I don't have to agree with everything you or the British people believe about Islam, or what you and/or they believe about the impact of immigrants on the economy. By which I'm saying that for all some underlying realities of grooming and terrorism, lots of the complaints of the British public about immigrants (of any sort) are more about perception than reality.

If you want to know why lots of British people in post-industrial towns are poor and miserable, it's because their industries collapsed in the 1980s and no-one's restored adequate new industries to take their place; meanwhile labour has become increasing casualised, insecure, and low-pay. It's not because some Polish guys moved in next door in 2006.

Avnger:
Yes, yes damn those lefties for actually requiring facts and analysis that fits those facts. How dare they not just agree with me or tell me my alternate facts are just as good as reality!

I'm not talking about "facts" or whatever it is you're on about, I'm talking about people blindly throwing around the term racist, xenophobe or whatever label.

Agema:
In the middle ages, Christians wiped out whole towns and cities.

Are you actually serious? I'm not talking about the middle-ages, I'm talking about 2017. Do you own a calendar? Christians are not stoning women to death for adultery today, Hindus do not throw homosexuals from buildings and protestants aren't raping and enslaving Yazidi women.

Agema:
What I'm saying is there is nothing inherently or fundamentally problematic about Islam.

You could not be more wrong. I don't care whether or not you'll ever change your mind, but you are utterly wrong and the fact that you cannot see that, or that there are other views than your own, is the reason Trump is US President and why I and many others are terrified of labour. Corbyn is on video describing Hamas and Hezbollah as friends, terrorist groups who slaughter Jews and other innocents. Your hands are over your eyes if you cannot see the issues in Islam.

You think what you want, you're wrong. Islam is an evil ideology and incompatible with British values. It is responsible for all the incidents I linked and many more besides. I'm not going to defend religions are holy books, but you're utterly mistaken to think Islam is "the same as the others". Unless you have something new or revelatory, I'd say this horse is sufficiently flogged.

KingsGambit:
I'm not talking about the middle-ages, I'm talking about 2017. Do you own a calendar? Christians are not stoning women to death for adultery today, Hindus do not throw homosexuals from buildings and protestants aren't raping and enslaving Yazidi women.

Christian terrorists exist today. Christians still kill LGBT people today. Christian religious leaders are abusing kids, and being protecting by other christian religious leaders today. Hell, Cardinal Pell, the third ranking Catholic priest after the Pope, is currently facing two trials in Australia about this.

Thaluikhain:
Christian terrorists exist today. Christians still kill LGBT people today. Christian religious leaders are abusing kids, and being protecting by other christian religious leaders today. Hell, Cardinal Pell, the third ranking Catholic priest after the Pope, is currently facing two trials in Australia about this.

Well I'll condemn them as and when I hear of them, but they aren't the issue I'm discussing. I'm discussing islam. You cannot argue against problem A by saying there's also a problem B; the one does not preclude the other. I'm not talking about the middle ages, and I'm not talking about whatever you are describing. We are talking today, Europe, Islam. The British people don't want to end up with a situation like Sweden or Germany now finds itself in. This is not an issue of race, but one of economics, religion and culture.

I don't actually get your point to be honest, and I say this sincerely. Am I expected to defend whoever you're talking about, so you can accuse me of something or other? There are plenty of crazy people in the world who do evil, but they aren't the subject.

Thaluikhain:
And while Islam isn't a race, it has racial demographics.

With respect, I don't think you have a full understanding of Islam. Anyone in the world can be a Muslim. You have only to accept the five pillars of Islam and you are accepted as such. Muslims can and do come from any country, have any skin, hair and eye colour. They can be fair or dark, white or black, arab, persian, polynesian, they can be any shape and size and speak any language. Pakistan is muslim but is racially like India. Indonesians are mostly muslim and are racially similar to other south-east asian countries. Iran is muslim, its inhabitants are persian. The gulf countries are muslim and arab. Somalia is muslim and its inhabitants are black skinned.

So no, you cannot be "racist" against muslims. Which race would one be against? Can you be racist against Christians? And if so, is it only Italians who you'd be racist against, because latin america is mostly catholic too, and they're not the same race either. Islam is a religion, NOT a race and is open to criticism as much as any other. It has a holy book like Christianity and like the New Testament, the Quran is also open to criticism and challenging ideas is not racism. There's arguably a case to be made with Jews who are a race, but that's a different debate and whatever one's view it isn't relevant here.

Anyway, getting a long way off topic.

KingsGambit:
Are you actually serious?

Can you actually read? I already addressed the temporal context you're referring to here: you just snipped it out.

You could not be more wrong.

But I'm not wrong. It is incredibly obvious that millions of Muslims live peaceably, respectfully and law-abindingly in Western countries. Thus any Muslims theoretically can, and therefore there is nothing about Islam that inherently makes Muslims unfit for Western society. It's as simple a logical proof as there can be.

Your hands are over your eyes if you cannot see the issues in Islam.

I'm well aware of certain issues with Islam. But I have to temper that with the fact that I have Muslims as neighbours, colleagues, and as students that I teach. I have to deal with Muslims as real human beings on a daily basis, and I just don't have the luxury that you apparently do to prejudically treat them as some theoretical "other", each and every one which you can be happy to damn even if you don't know that individual from Adam.

Much of which makes you just amongst the worst self-proclaimed liberals I've ever encountered, because you're obviously lacking a grasp of vital and fundamental concepts of liberalism.

KingsGambit:
Well I'll condemn them as and when I hear of them, but they aren't the issue I'm discussing. I'm discussing islam. You cannot argue against problem A by saying there's also a problem B; the one does not preclude the other. I'm not talking about the middle ages, and I'm not talking about whatever you are describing. We are talking today, Europe, Islam. The British people don't want to end up with a situation like Sweden or Germany now finds itself in. This is not an issue of race, but one of economics, religion and culture.

I don't actually get your point to be honest, and I say this sincerely. Am I expected to defend whoever you're talking about, so you can accuse me of something or other? There are plenty of crazy people in the world who do evil, but they aren't the subject.

Do you not see how this is a double standard? You're insisting that introducing Muslims into Europe is A Bad Thing because Islam is a religion with a history of violence and therefore anyone who follows it must be violent too...but when pointed out that Christianity has a fair bit of blood on its hands you instantly switch to saying its not the religion, just crazy people doing evil things. Why is religion at fault in one case but not the other? What is the difference? Why is it that Good People are the exception to you when it comes to Islam, but Bad People are the exception (that you demand proof of even existing) for Christianity? Are you aware that doing stuff like that is pretty much the textbook definition of prejudice? This is why people call you names dude, because you are in fact doing what they're accusing you of

KingsGambit:
posts thus far

I think you are on the defensive bud because you feel like everyone is disagreeing with you. I think people would lay off if you take back that statement you made about British people not wanting muslims in their country because you think most of them of are causing problems and committing serious crimes. It's a sweeping generalisation that people are obviously going to take offence to. I used to work with some very nice muslims who I'm still friends with. It's not fair to say stuff like that about an entire group of people in a whole country.

If you want to touch controversial topics like the negative effects of different cultures on society, there are better ways of expressing it. Now if you wanted to criticise their beliefs in an intellectual sense and discuss how the way some muslims interpret Islam could lead a small minority to segregate themselves or become extremists, then I think it would have been better received because there are some huge problems there - and I don't think anyone disputes that. You also have to remember that 1st generation immigrants will have a harder time acclimatising than their children, who become fully British when they are born here and fit in fine. Muslims are just like any other group in that there are lots of different types of people.

KingsGambit:
I don't actually get your point to be honest, and I say this sincerely.

You were saying that Islam is inherently different to other religions, such as Christianity, and listed as evidence various atrocities committed by Muslims. I was pointing to similar acts committed by Christians to show that those aren't evidence of inherent differences.

KingsGambit:
Anyone in the world can be a Muslim.

In theory, yes, in practice, the people tended to complain about Muslims/Islam tend to be living in areas where the demographics of the local Muslims is notably different from the demographics of the locals in general.

KingsGambit:
Can you be racist against Christians?

If you happen to live in an area where the Christians tend to be of different demographics than the locals in general, if you are prejudiced against demographics associated with Christianity, you'll likely be prejudiced against Christians. That is not being racist against Christians per se, but it is very similar.

KingsGambit:
I'm not talking about "facts"

Oh, I think that's quite clear.

Thaluikhain:
In theory, yes, in practice, the people tended to complain about Muslims/Islam tend to be living in areas where the demographics of the local Muslims is notably different from the demographics of the locals in general.

No, not in theory, in reality. In the actual world and not inside your text book or imagination. It's a far-left nonsense invention that being critical of Islam is racist when it isn't, but for some reason it's fine to bash Christianity (probably because Christians won't break into your office and shoot you dead like Charlie Hebdo).

Islam is not above criticism, far too many atrocities have been committed in its name and you do not get to call people who are unhappy about it racists and xenophobes because of liberal "politically correct" sensibilities. You can be an apologist for Islam if you want, but it's an evil ideology that brainwashes young men to go to the middle east and join terrorist groups, commit atrocities like Manchester Arena and Bataclan theatre and that's just the two I can be bothered to type. Sweden and Germany are in dire straits from taking on too many immigrants and many don't want the same for Britain. That is NOT racist or xenophobic, it is a cultural, socio-economic issue.

You are performing mental gymnastics to try and twist a religion into a race. I don't know why or what point you're trying to prove. A religion is a religion and criticising it is not racism. Islam is not the same as other religions, it is a violent, abhorrent and evil set of ideas that are incompatible with western culture and I would take any other religion over it. That isn't racism, that's anti-religion and that is not a crime or hate speech. Martin Luther famously posted a note on a church door when he'd had enough. Issues today are not coming from other faiths so pretending that "they're all the same" or "as bad as each other" is a lie. I'm right, you know I'm right but you're going to argue it anyway, go ahead, I'm done repeating myself.

If you want to see actual racism, Corbyn's Labour are more than happy to oblige.

Silvanus:

KingsGambit:
I'm not talking about "facts"

Oh, I think that's quite clear.

I love that even when you quote me intentionally out of context like it's all clever, you reinforce my point. You need to learn to troll better.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here