E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Not exactly, a YouGov poll from 2015 (PDF Warning) shows UKIP has a higher percentage of supporters who consider themselves as prejudiced against people of other races, and hold views they themselves consider are racist.
----------------------------------------------------------
Would you describe yourself as very prejudiced against people of other races, a little prejudiced, or not prejudiced at all?

Very prejudiced against people of other races.
Con 1, Lab 1, Lib Dem 0, UKIP 6

A little prejudiced against people of other races.
Con 36, Lab 22, Lib Dem 27, UKIP 42

Not prejudiced at all.
Con 60, Lab 72, Lib Dem 73, UKIP 49

Don't Know.
Con 4, Lab 6, Lib Dem 1, UKIP 3
------------------------------------------------------------

Do you personally have views that you think are racist?

Yes, I have some views that are racist.
Con 22, Lab 13, Lib Dem 12, UKIP 28.

No, I do not have any views that are racist.
Con 68, Lab 78, Lib Dem 80, UKIP 64.

Not Sure.
Con 10, Lab 9, Lib Dem 8, UKIP 8.
------------------------------------------------------------

 

Arguing that other parties are racist does not make UKIP any less racist. And yeah, UKIP is racist, sorry.

You may argue that Vote Leave were not racist, honest, because UKIP isn't racist, honest, but the fact is that UKIP is known for making blatantly racist remarks and by aligning its campaign with the campaign of UKIP, Vote Leave is perceived as giving legitimacy to racist views and pandering to the racist vote. Whatever intentions you may infer, this is how it looks to others. You seem unable to accept that.

No. What I am saying is that people will judge you by your behaviour. If you crack jokes about rape, people may form an opinion about you. Because freedom of thought and speech works in both directions: you can crack jokes about rape; others can think you're a misogynist dick for doing so. Now you can then at argue that you don't approve of rape, honest, but others may hold the opinion that your statement is contradicted by your behaviour. If you can live with people thinking you're a misogynist dick, go ahead, crack the jokes. If it bothers you, don't. Your call.

I'm saying nothing of the sort (remember, you brought the subject up). I'm saying that freedom of speech does not include freedom from its social consequences. People are judged by what they say and the way they say it. Especially in politics.

No, it's about your actions having consequences and owning them.

According to the police there is nothing 'supposed' about it. But perhaps they, too, are part of the white male heteronormative patriarchal conspiracy. Or something.

By that logic, if you crack jokes about rape and someone calls you out for it, they are in fact promoting rape by making rapists think that all the guys cracking jokes about rape are secretly on their side.

Boy, I wouldn't want to live in your head.

Farage quite clearly built his campaign to appeal to xenophobic sentiment: Britain being overrun by aliens. He also accused refugees of being rapists and Romanians of being criminals. Vote Leave then picked up the theme by arguing that the Turks are coming and are also criminals.

Note that none of this is a rational discussion about EU immigration and its socioeconomic impact on Britain.

I'm pointing out how it looks to many people. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from social judgement.

 

No it wouldn't but I am not arguing UKIP are any less racist per se just that your metric for designating UKIP racists is flawed and that it relies on the idea that the party is defined by a small number of bad actors, who they immediately clear out. I was merely highlighting that by your logic then every other party would be racist and that is clearly not the case. It's also the very fact that it reaches that conclusion (that all parties are racist) eliminates your proposition that leave, specifically, worked with racist parties when, even if you were right on the basis of past bad actors, that would mean nearly every politician was a member of a racist party.

Ukip have only ever had one MP and I don't have to show you an MP. Look at their councilors, MEPs, AMs and so on and compare them to other parties, it's a quick cursory google search.

Your logic follows that X party has some racists, therefore X party is racist, therefore Y group who works with X party is racist.

No, they are known to have had elected officials who have made blatantly racist remarks like any other party, that doesn't mean it is a racist party.

Here again is the key word OPINION.

But it wouldn't logically follow that I would approve of rape from my behaviour, it requires you to add attributes to me that I have not actually revealed.People can think what they like but it doesn't make their argument for holding that opinion based in reality because they are filling in the gaps with their own biases. So they couldn't say as a statement of fact that I would be misogynist. I could joke about my death but that doesn't mean that I want to die or that I think that it is good to die.

Likewise that doesn't mean that, as a statement of fact, UKIP are a racist party based on you attributing motivations rather than having any evidence.





would you consider it right and proper that louis CK is a rape apologist misogynistic sexist based on that evidence.

Judged but that doesn't mean that the person making the judgement is right.

But there have been no actions only inferences of those actions and that doesn't mean that people using those inferences should be believed when they make the accusation of an inferred action as a statement of fact.

Again that was an incomplete sentence on my part when I was in a rush, I did say that.

As I said previously: people who believe in racist, sexist conspiracy theories like white male heteronormative patriarchal conspiracy and privilege who are taught that, in universities for that matter, are well on the remain side if you look at the guardian and other media columnists who promote ideology that relies on conspiracies like that.

Actually there is a "supposed" increase For example:
There has been a rise in REPORTED hate crime through online reporting, there has also been an activist drive on social media to report race motivated crime through online forms and reports of a rise in such crimes also include reporting nigel farage as a hate crime.

I would personally welcome, and sign any petition calling for, an independent QC led public enquiry public enquiry into this because the media haven't actually done their job and investigated the facts or even at least asked questions of it.

That doesn't mean that there hasn't been an increase just that the increase isn't actually a proven reality.

No they'd be trivialising rape and it is more likely that they would call you a rape apologist, than a more broad term like misogynist (though they'd include it).

Your idea is that if people think Y is socially acceptable then Y will be acted upon. I'm saying if you make people think X is the same as Y, and assuming you're premise, then when X becomes legitimised again people will think Y is the same so Y is socially acceptable too and will therefore act on Y.

He accused these groups of bringing criminals as a part of their composition not that it is the entirety of their composition.

Now xenophobia is a different debate from racism though.

But those are the key words "LOOKS" and "to many people" is irrelevant. Something isn't something until it can be proven that it is.

I'm fine with you having your social judgement but I am not going to agree that your social judgement (based on guilt by association, speculation and double standards) actually informs us of the reality of racism in relation to the referendum, its consequences and therefore legitimacy as fact.

Every piece of evidence presented for your argument, that racism was caused by leave allying with a racist party and giving racists legitimacy as a result, is subject to reasonable doubts at each stage and wouldn't even meet the proof of balance of probability.

You've continually levelled the accusation that as a matter of fact leave rode the racist tiger to victory when in reality any actual source used to back it up cannot prove racism at any point and the rest is inference of causality and intention for which there are many other reasonable causalities and intentions that are not race.

It's not that your cannot be right on this, it's possible, it's that you can't prove that it IS right to any reasonable degree.

 

UKIP's party officials make racist statements. Its leader makes racist statements. Its members admit to being racist. But it's not a racist party. Got it.

Doesn't matter. What matters is what people think of you and whether you can live with that. Many people think that Vote Leave rode the racist tiger to victory. You can argue until you're blue in the face that it didn't, but that is what it looks like so that is what people think. If Leavers can't live with that, then tough: actions have consequences.

Saying stuff is an action too, and subject to social judgement. And free speech is not a licence for being a dick.

And Vote Leave made their X sound like Farage's Y.

Oh, that makes all the difference.

Racism lies pretty much smack inside the Venn diagram of xenophobia. You can argue semantics, but we all know it when we see it.

It's pretty relevant to the general public. Hey, blame it on the current trend of post-factual politics.

You can live in denial all you want, but that is not going to change how many people see it.

Being in denial of proof is not the same as there not being any.

You still don't get it. I don't have to be 'right' on this. This is what people see. This is the perception they have. This is their social judgement. Deal.

 

Racism = based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

These days the goalpost keeps moving which means that eventually anything and everything becomes racist, regardless of whether it truly is or not.

A political party that is a racist party base their politics and policies on racial superiority. Then – if they can - they implement those as state policy. National Socialism would be an example of this.

, I had to look it up.

According to Wikipedia it comes from bongo drums, often used to refer to Third World countries.
If used in context of third world countries being less civilized in terms of culture – African or otherwise - I would say that it sometimes would have merit.

So I wouldn't necessarily called it a racist statement since it would depend on the context in which it was being used.

 

Yeah thanks, I know what it refers to. It is condescending, and hence racist.

racism /ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/

noun

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

"Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices."

Keep in mind that 'race' is in the eye of the beholder. There never was an Arian race, for instance, nor are Jews a race.

 

As I said, these days the goalpost keeps moving which means that eventually anything and everything becomes racist, regardless of whether it truly is or not.

I would reject that as racism because different races and different ethnicities have slightly different standards for everything from testosterone, to estrogen, predisposition to certain diseases and defects, height, IQ etc. 60,000+ years of evolution in different environments will do that. Denying our own variety for fear of hurt feelings calling it racism when pointing those out is absolute lunacy.

You are 98% similar to a chimp. 2% is a lot in terms of genetic differences. There are biological differences between races, ethnicities and gender. If it's .05% difference that's a lot and more than enough to explain differences, even in behavior.

It's first now when you start to value it in that way it can become a problem, this is precisely what the National Socialists did, even within the white race itself. In fact, they did it within their own ethnicity. The result would have been that in the end none of them would have qualified in the society that they envisioned.

 

Even more, in the biological sense there are no different human races at all, "race" is purely a social construct.

http://web.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml#7

 

It looks to me that they are confusing race with species.

 

Ah yes, the scientists of the Human Genome Project, the world's largest collaborative biological project ever, involving over 1000 scientists from 6 countries, obviously don't know what they're talking about.

C'mon now, walle...

 

I didn't say they didn't know what they were talking about. What I said was that they seem to confuse race with species.

Race is what we use to point out differences just like we use ethnicity in the same way, language, culture etc. If science now wishes to ignore our visual differences - which are genetically determined, as are many other traits, some of which I've mentioned- and then proceed to suggest that on the basis of them not being able to separate us into different subspecies, that different races therefore would not exist, well that's entirely up to them.

Personally I do not think this work is done yet and it will be interesting to see what the scientific community has to say when the work is finished.

That there wouldn't be any subspecies shouldn't come as a surprise. To find those we would have to go further back in time.

 

Of course they are: over 1000 genetic scientists, but you know better than all of them.

 

Clearly that's the case since they confuse race with species even when in legion, then proceed to suggest that since they cant separate us into subspecies there are no different races

When we talk in terms of different races it's not done in context of different subspecies. If science doesn't like the word race - for what ever reason - they should come up with a new term.

 

- Race has a scientific, biological definition
- The most elaborate investigation on the subject yet concludes that what we consider different "races" does not match that definition
- It doesn't say there are no differences between ethnicities at all, but that they are genetically so small they do not indicate different human races
- Therefore no categorical statements can be made about whatever "race"

Our own social distinctions are actually pretty arbitrary when you take out the visual aspect. I've read that some African people are genetically more different from each other than from what we consider "caucasian" humans.

I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to accept clear conclusions from a trusted scientific resource. Are you sure cognitive dissonance isn't preventing you from accepting you were wrong on a subject at this point?
I can assure you there's nothing wrong with being wrong about something. We all live to learn.

 

I think we might have to go back to the drawing board and reexamine racism, perhaps call it innate biases or something.

 

What utter BS, you're arguing exactly that, you're saying UKIP have the same level of racism as any other party even when the evidence shows that not to be true, no matter what metric we use UKIP come out tops in terms of racism, that's not to say the whole party is racist just that they have a higher percentage of supporters who identify themselves as racist.

 

I thought you only replied to posts I replied to you in. Regardless good to hear from you.

Nexxo was stating that the party is racist and that vote leave aligned itself with a racist party. One of the measurements by which was stated as evidence for this was a left foot forward article about 15 examples of racist (and more accurately in some cases more generally prejudiced against an entire non raced based demographic) members of the party who have been candidates for councillors, Westminster seats, elected councillors and one MEP. All of whom were suspended and barred. Now as you have stated the evidence does not to say the party is racist as a whole. So how did vote leave align itself with a racist party?

I would say that to accept that the party in question is racist has no evidence that means we can judge it as a statement of fact rather than opinion, since the evidence in question will rely on inference.

On the other note of whether or not UKIP has more racist members than other parties, I am stating that it is merely unknown because there is no reliable data to say so. I am not stating that something is just that there is not proof that it is. Which is in response to the inference made that if it attracts more racist members than others then that says something intrinsically bad about the party. I wonder if there is any analysis to prove that UKIP has more racist members than other parties or whether people just assume that they do based on how they think their polices will attract them and the cases they noticed rather than a real comparison.

 

Honestly i thought i was on your ignore list as you've failed to reply to all my previous replies to you.

IIRC Nexxo didn't say the party is racist, they're just more racist than the other three main parties.

As for the question on whether vote leave aligned itself with a racist party I'd say there's no question that's what they did, if not aligned they certainly didn't distance themselves from it, they had the only UKIP MP as a member, i mean they even pledged to work together.

That's where you're wrong, although I'm guessing that's down to you missing my previous replies to you...

 

it's ingroup-outgroup bias, and stems from tribal competition for the same ecological niche/resources. People are tribal animals, who tend to feel loyal to their own group and suspicious of the other group, and think that their own group is better than the other group. What constitutes 'our' group can be a complex nested Venn diagram and shift contextually.

As such what (ordinary, non-scientist) people consider "race" is also arbitrary. It's just one of many labels used to distinguish our group from the next group over and justify our attitude and behaviour towards them. Heck, we may even go the whole way and argue that the 'others' are another (sub-human) species. The average racist has not studied zoology.

 

No, get this right. Nexxo was stating that Vote Leave is perceived as having aligned itself with UKIP's racist campaign and hence to have won the vote on racist argument (rather than, as you like to think, a rational discussion on the socioeconomic impact of free movement of EU immigrants). This has led to a perceived legitimisation of racism.

You then said that there was no proof that UKIP's campaign was racist.

I then showed a number of racist quotes by members of UKIP, including Farage himself. Corky42 linked to a survey in which more members of UKIP than of any other party admitted to being racist or at least prejudiced against other ethnicities. If UKIP is racist in ideology, it is likely that their campaign was, no?

You then argued that other parties are racist too.

I said that does not prove that UKIP is not racist.

You then said no, but if my metric shows that all parties are to an extent racist, it must be a flawed metric.

I am saying that you have not proved that by "my metric" other parties are as blatantly racist as UKIP is. You are just dissembling.

You mean except the poll that, like, just asked them?

But I'm sure that a party whose leader advocates allowing employment discrimination on grounds of nationality, race or skin colour, that children of immigrants born in the UK should be reclassified as "hidden immigrants", and who blames being late for a meeting because immigrants are clogging up the M4 and who states that people should be concerned if Romanians moved in next door is not racist.

Denying the evidence does not mean it's not there. You just don't like the idea that people may reasonably perceive Vote Leave to have won on a fundamentally racist campaign because you feel it undermines the legitimacy of the result. It doesn't; if the majority of people chooses for a policy that is based in irrational racist sentiment, that is still a legitimate democratic majority decision (even if the reasons are stupid and irrational). People may just feel it says something rather unpleasant about that majority, and Leavers will have to deal with that. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from its social consequences.