E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

We're actually trying to argue our views on motivation.

The intention isn't to do with EU migrants alone but to use the migrant crisis to try to display that the EU threatens our borders and that EU incompetence in this issue threatens to send large volumes of people of unknown origin, unknown destination and unknown culture. The reason why it was a bunch of brown people is because that's what people in the migrant crisis look like.

If you were to be worried about the migrant crisis there'd be a lot of things to be worried about that are not to do with "aaaahh brown people."

That's not to say that whether we are in the EU or not reduces our exposure by that much and I think it's misleading as to the scale of influence that decision may have but it isn't racist. The problem is that any policy that is going to reduce immigration racists will be in favour of but that doesn't mean all people in favour of reducing immigration (specifically net immigration) are racists.

Yeah must have imagined those UKIP supporters from minority ethnic groups then.....

No, no, no.

There was zero in what I said in context that was wrong so, no.

and all this is to say nothing of the people and groups of the so called "progressive" movement who currently want to implement real racist policies, with racist motivations and even get their way.

If people are worried about muslims and islamic culture being brown is irrelevant and you can't be racist against an ideology or a culture.

Jim crow, black slavery, pogroms, Idi amin, the armenian genocide, the holocaust, the BNP, apartheid all run counter to that analysis

Do you mean the bald guy who looks suspiciously like some kind of law enforcement agent because he is wearing armour on his shoulder and body on closer inspection who is behind the vote leave message on the bus picture.

Got it

This guy?

 

Farage created that poster because a throng of foreign looking refugees with "unknown culture" is likely to inspire fear in a certain mindset.

But those are not the worries that are being articulated, are they? It's "aaaahh, Muslims = terrorists. Aaaahh, Turks = criminals".

If the arguments made are racist, then they will be perceived as racist, and if they are perceived as winning the vote, it will be perceived as having been won on racist grounds. Doesn't matter whether Leave voters are racist (for the record polls suggest only about 20% are); it's the company they are perceived to be in that causes them to be tarred by the same brush.

Your point being? "Some of my best friends are black"?

I disagree.

I doubt that many racists make that fine distinction.

All justified by elaborate arguments much like the ones you are making: "It's not about their race/culture/religion/nationality; it's just that..."

- It's not because they're Black per sé, it's just that everyone knows Blacks are primitive subhuman savages who need the strong moral guiding hand of White people, whose role is to serve the superior Whites as God ordained, whose genes should not pollute the White gene pool.

- It's not about their being Jews per sé, it's just that everyone knows that Jews are a scheming, inferior race(!) damned by God for killing Jesus and out to destroy decent society in a Zionist plot to take over the world bla bla bla...

- It's not that they are Asian or White, they just have no business being here in Africa...

- It's not that they are Muslim, it's just everyone knows that they are terrorists and molest women in the street...

- It's not that they are Turks, it's just that everyone knows that they are knife wielding, gun carrying criminals...

- It's not that they are [insert ethnic group here], it's just that they come over here taking our jobs and doing our women (or was that the other way around?), and dilute our culture and way of life with their strange language and weird ways and funny dress and funny smelling food...

Ostensibly there are always some pseudo-logical, pseudo-rational reasons, and the race, ethnicity, culture or religion is just a coincidental but convenient correlate.

 

Still not racism though is it, in regards to unknown culture? The foreign looking is your speculation but we can't prove the counterfactual because there are no migrant crises occurring in countries that would cause such a number heavy flow of non "foriegn looking people".

Still not racism....

And it it's not just terrorism either.....

But the arguments made have not been racist.

On what grounds?

That's the racists problem not the problem of the people who are worried about other issues regardless of the race of the person.

And no one has said anything like those things. All those things are explicitly racist because the "problems" they highlight are all being linked directly to race.

And it isn't a coincidence if you are trying to highlight the migrant crisis as an EU failure, rightly or wrongly by logical standards, every picture you get is going to be of brown people.

It's not: a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection (coincidence). It's a pretty ordinary photograph, demographically speaking, of migrants in the recent migrant crisis caused by nearly all of those people coming from areas where it is beneficial to have sufficient melanin as to be at least somewhat olive skinned or brown.

They're nearly all men too, is it sexist as well?

(your further examples simply are giving your own inference in biasing those things by making them generalisations rather than things that have been said)

If you are really worried about racism and other discrimination then you'd be better focusing on people who are explicitly enforcing and promoting it, rather than people you are inferring as racist:

"It's not that they're white heteronormative males per se, it's that they have white heteronormative male priveledge which they use to enforce a system white heteronormative male patriarchal oppression which is evidenced by unequal outcomes and that we should do [insert discrimination here] against these people because of it (and yes the jews are included in the oppressors as well)"

That is being taught in institutions of learning like universities in the name of being against racism, sexism etc.

 

You can argue all you want the semantics that "it's not racist because nobody mentioned race", but perhaps you ought to explain that to those people who thought that voting Leave would mean all the Muslims, Asian and Caribbean people would now be "sent back".

We both know what it is and what place it comes from. You protest too much.

 

Anyone familiar with photographer Martin Parr's work think the pictures in this article look and feel very familiar? The similarities are uncanny.

"Clacton-on-Sea: Leave voters left frustrated as Article 50 triggering is postponed
70% of residents voted 'out', which ultimately helped Britain secure the result in favour of quitting the EU.'

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clacton-se...rated-article-50-triggering-postponed-1578979


"A woman holds a fan at the UKIP Committee Brexit party in Clacton-on-Sea."

 

The point I made was to show there's diversity in homogeneity and that homogeneity isn't necessarily a weakness. It can be a strength.


@Nexxo & Disequilibria

You are getting race and culture mixed up. I've always maintained that Brexit wasn't' about racism but culture.

 

I'm merely protesting the protester.........

I don't remember doing that, I was pretty clear culture concerns aren't racist concerns.

 

Nope, racists are. The underlying xenophobia is the same.

 

Or maybe, since we are radically inferring intentions to call people what should be one of the worst things, people like yourself maybe want to keep the word that has been so effective in shutting down topics from discussion..............

 

Doesn't seem to have shut down this discussion. ("People like me"? Really?)

Stop playing the murdered innocent. Farage fed the racist tiger and Vote Leave rode it to victory. Least it can do is own how it makes them look.

 

That's true, culture concerns aren't necessarily racist concerns.

Not at all, wanting to preserve your own cultural heritage and cohesion doesn't come down to hate or fear.

 

It has been in the past but the times they are a changing.

It's a point you've tried to prove and have only been able to argue through inference, that ignores non race based reasons, in order to de-legitimise the result; by telling us things, that aren't racist, are racist. As a result of the one and only angle of inference that can support your view that it is in fact racist.

And not withstanding somewhat denying the agency of actual racists and continuing to perpetuate the ideas that lead to those people thinking they have more people on their side than they actually have, i.e that non racist arguments are racist.

Guilt by association isn't valid and you had the majority of the people who have the white male heteronormative patriachal conspiracies on your side.

 

Of course not. There is a big difference between loving your own culture and hating another.

You build a contrived argument right down to semantic technicality that Farage's campaign wasn't racist because you don't like the idea of Vote Leave being perceived of having aligned itself with racists, and that the vote may be perceived to have been won by racist argument.

No, racists have concluded all by themselves that fellow Leavers are on their side. Might want to ask yourself why.

Ooh, white male heteronormative patriarchal conspiracy now! Yup, you're sure convincing me.

 

Because there is no evidence that it was beyond your inference and your contrived malleable definition of racism.

No, with a little help from the people who said that discussing immigration in regards to sheer numbers, economic and cultural issues is racist and/or a beard for racism. So that when people start actually discussing migration the people who don't like migrants because of their race see people openly discussing it they think they have buddies.

This is the result of people who think they could censor away ideas and Also don't even understand that racism is prejudice, actions and discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity not just whatever someone's subjective interpretation is.

That was my mistake, had to get moving. it was meant to read that your side have the people who believe in those kind of conspiracies on your side. Especially if you take a poll of people with those racist and sexist ideas who have columns in the guardian and other media. You know the people I always reference when talking about "reverse racist" racists and "reverse sexist" sexists. You know the people actually promoting and sometimes getting implemented actual discrimitory policies to combat perceived discrimination that can not be proven to be there in reality.

That's before we get to people like Eddie "25 marathons for every year a terrorist organiser directly responsible for mass murder spent in prison" Izzard wonder how many miles he plans to run or each of the victims. Or sinn fein for that matter.

 

Okay.

Who is making inferences now?

Oh, the correct technical term is xenophobia then. Well, that makes a world of difference. Let's tell the racists that when they're hating on the Polish and Muslims, they're doing it wrong ("Look, you can hate on Asians and Blacks because they're races. But you can't hate on the Polish or Muzzies, 'cause they're a nationality and religion, respectively, and that falls outside the specialist hate of racism. If you want to also hate on them, you'll have to diversify your hating into general xenophobia. There's a form to fill out...").

So your argument boils down to: "No, you're the racist"?

 

You do realise that people who make racist comments are suspended and barred from that party quicker than in other parties. I must have imagined that anti semitism enquiry labour had that covered everything up and then the writer suddenly got a peerage. Maybe have a look round at labour and tory councillors who have been suspended for racism and some who were former members of the bnp or before, the great exercise of free speech given to nick griffin to destroy his own party on Qt, those former members of the greens, labour, tories and lib dems who defected.to the bnp. Your arguments simply have no basis.

You have a narrative that relies on inferences, i have an equally valid counter narrative based on inferences. One of the differences empirically is that people on the leave side, including Farage, have continually disavowed and condemned actual racists and there's only one side trying to give them and insist they have buddies.

No it boils down to:
It's pointless to argue for guilt by association especially when you have people who argue for and get implemented explicitly discriminatory policies among several other distasteful groups and people; some who treat dead former terrorists like a patron Saint.

 

You argued that there was no evidence that UKIP is racist. I'm posting evidence of racist statements made by UKIP MPs. Your retort is: "But Labour is racist too!". That does not prove that UKIP is not, and also is beside the point of this discussion.

Racists never think that they are being racist; they think that they are just calling it as it is.

I "have" nobody. I am arguing that Farage's campaign is racist and that Vote Leave, by aligning itself with that campaign, has therefore been perceived as giving that racism legitimacy. Moreover it is perceived that this is what swung the vote.

 

Still doesn't mean that they are a racist party, your evidence is merely proof it has had racist members which every party has had.

If someone holds racist views that are actually racist they will get called racist for it. So it is even more damaging if they think they aren't racists because if they see people calling another thing racist that isn't I.e migration concerns for none race based reasons for years and they suddenly see people openly debating these pseudo racist issues they will think they have allies in their own views.

Sorry if my writing style become.more blunt or full of errors I'm on my phone. I wanted to edit have on remain's side in but select is a right pain in the.....

You're arguing his campaign is racist by subjective inference as to his intent, doesn't mean it is. I am counter-arguing that the campaign was not racist unless you choose to take it that way (it reminds me of when people argue rape is perpetuated by rape jokes or innocent till proven guilty proven beyond reasonable doubt system of law). Furthermore that in fact racists have been outright condemned by all major leave campaigners and the legitimisation comes from racist people thinking that what people refer to as racism is the same as their own actual racism. Moreover that both sides have racists on them and trying to delegitimise a result because there are groups you don't like on the other side is really guilt by association.

 

Yes, perhaps, for all his political savvy Farage is a genuine innocent wondering why his party keeps attracting flaming racists. If you believe that I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

Or: if people genuinely think they are not being racist but keep being told that they are, perhaps it behoves them to re-examine how their behaviour and statements might be coming across. Perhaps they don't want to sound like, or hang out with known racists. Like: don't align your campaign with that of a party with a solid reputation for being racist, lest you might get tarred with the same brush or worse, lest it gives the racist party perceived legitimacy by association with yourself.

Why don't you crack a few rape jokes in the office and see how your female colleagues react. See if it changes their view of you a bit...

...and then please tell them how you actually condemn rape in the strongest possible terms. See how well that goes down.

If Farage keeps having to suspend racists from his party, perhaps he ought to reflect on what it is he is doing or saying that keeps attracting them (pro tip: he doesn't because he embraces the same ideology). If Vote Leave Aligns itself with a party with a reputation for racism, perhaps it needs to reflect on how that may legitimise racism, affect its own reputation, and the perceived validity of their argument.

 

You could apply the same to all the other parties if you are measuring by the metric you are using. There is no evidence that they have attracted any more racists than other parties and there is no evidence that his party is actually racist itself. Just more guilt by association.

"Coming across." So again we aren't talking about people making statements that ARE racist but people adding their own inference in that they are. Again there is no evidence that UKIP have a solid reputation for being racist, they are simply known like every other major party including the greens and lib dems FFS for sometimes having members that are racist and suspending them like any other party. Contrast that with the National front, BNP etc who actually do and say things that are defined by racism.

What you are talking about is people taking offence at a joke not actually promoting the subject of the joke or that people shouldn't be allowed to tell them. This is where we come back to regressive left style policies where free speech should be restricted just because someone might INFER something nefarious in what you say, for which there is no evidence that you intended, but because you said it that means you did. Or that because others might INFER some kind of intention that it means that what they INFERRED was what was intended therefore you are responsible for other people's response.

And just because it is socially inappropriate in our current culture to say something in a certain situation doesn't mean that what you are saying is actually unacceptable in every given situation or necessarily should be unacceptable at all.

Again, so it is about offence now? We can also get into how society and often workplaces has double standards about what is deemed unacceptably offensive, dropping the soap and the like.

Because this is what hate crime laws and rules based on people's offence leads to special victims for special crimes and that it is a crime to be commiting a crime whilst possibly thinking certain thoughts. Equality under the law but some are more equal than others. Offence isn't given it is taken.

Perceived being the key word likewise perceived being the key word in relation to "racist party" because you only perceive them as racist by a metric that would require all parties to be racist and then we'd be at a point where jezza's an anti semitic racist, the tories are racists, the lib dems are racist.

All we've got so far is that a supposed rise in race motivated crime, supposedly driven by brexit as a result of a supposed lowering social inhibitions as a result of the discussion of immigration and that they think that racist things are now allowed. So for arguments sake we have accepted all the above on both sides.

But how can't you see that it is also possible people would think the discussion about immigration was secretly racist if they have been told all discussion of immigration means that those people are secretly racist. The causality you attribute isn't the only possibly valid explanation.

All your really doing is speculating that farage, leave et. al have intentionally promoted racism, through people inferring their intent rather than anything they have actually said, and that the discussion itself, even though the arguments weren't actually based on race, leads to racism.

It's all speculation stated as fact to de legitimise a democratic decision on the basis of guilt by association, your own inference, and malleable definition of racism and that is before we get to your assumptions of race motivated crimes actually rising by anywhere as much as has been made out or at all.