Tommy Robinson arrested and jailed
Moderator: bbmods
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
Mugwump
- Posts: 8787
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
- Location: Between London and Melbourne
^ yes, if we could do one single thing to improve the functioning of our democracy, it might be to ban the word "racist", a grotesque slur which has been used to smear as Nazis and KKK etc those who want a managed immigration policy. It is not racist to protest at having your nation turned into an aircraft carrier of convenience, for the benefit of big business and property owners who benefit from the "growth" that results.
Two more flags before I die!
It's fascinating that people can't (or, more accurately, don't want to) distinguish between a legitimate debate about the role, scope and content of immigration in a particular country, on the one hand, and a bloke who has repeatedly committed egregious offences jeopardizing the conduct of criminal trials. It is not necessary to commit a contempt of court to have a debate about immigration. It is not necessary to turn up to a court, film defendants and refer to them as "Muslim child rapists" to have a debate about immigration. Anyone with two neurons to rub together can see that the link between a trial of people accused of appalling criminal offences against children and a "concern" about immigration is a spurious and exclusively racist one. Most people do not sexually abuse children. Some people do. Those who do are appalling and should be imprisoned.
Go ahead, have the debate - but put this nasty little criminal out with the rest of the garbage. Nothing he has done is defensible and reading people defending him insults our intelligence.
Go ahead, have the debate - but put this nasty little criminal out with the rest of the garbage. Nothing he has done is defensible and reading people defending him insults our intelligence.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
BravoPies4shaw wrote:It's fascinating that people can't (or, more accurately, don't want to) distinguish between a legitimate debate about the role, scope and content of immigration in a particular country, on the one hand, and a bloke who has repeatedly committed egregious offences jeopardizing the conduct of criminal trials. It is not necessary to commit a contempt of court to have a debate about immigration. It is not necessary to turn up to a court, film defendants and refer to them as "Muslim child rapists" to have a debate about immigration. Anyone with two neurons to rub together can see that the link between a trial of people accused of appalling criminal offences against children and a "concern" about immigration is a spurious and exclusively racist one. Most people do not sexually abuse children. Some people do. Those who do are appalling and should be imprisoned.
Go ahead, have the debate - but put this nasty little criminal out with the rest of the garbage. Nothing he has done is defensible and reading people defending him insults our intelligence.
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
-
David
- Posts: 50683
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 83 times
Last edited by David on Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
Mountains Magpie
- Posts: 1762
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:50 pm
- Location: Somewhere between now and then
Yes, if you believe in such things. The real question is: at which altar are you kneeling?Pies4shaw wrote:God bless the internet.
These things don't happen in a vacuum. For every action etc. Look closer, you'll eventually see the puppeteer's strings......David wrote:Their goal is to divide society, to keep outsiders out, and to revive some brand of aggressive nationalism.
Spiral progress, unstoppable,
exhausted sources replaced by perversion
exhausted sources replaced by perversion
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54843
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 132 times
- Been liked: 168 times
-
Mugwump
- Posts: 8787
- Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:17 pm
- Location: Between London and Melbourne
In many respects I do not even know what the word "racism" means now, it is so degraded.
It used to mean the repugnant belief that people of a certain race were inferior (which was called "racialism" in the 1960s). Then, mutating to the word "racism", it seemed to metastasize to to mean something like "xenophobia" (another term of abuse covering wider "sins"). Then, it became broadened so that the bigoted Left could attribute hateful racialism to those who resisted mass immigration, and wanted some idea of the "commons" in civil society.
There are racialists, of course : my experience, doing business across much of the world, is that most of these people are not white. Where they are white, however, the term "white supremacist" describes these benighted souls accurately. Using that term, in preference to the discredited "racist", would remove much pugilistic intolerance and self-righteousness from our public discourse, and make it far richer. I suspect, however, that a rich public discourse is not desired by those who fear they may lose the right to define permitted speech.
It used to mean the repugnant belief that people of a certain race were inferior (which was called "racialism" in the 1960s). Then, mutating to the word "racism", it seemed to metastasize to to mean something like "xenophobia" (another term of abuse covering wider "sins"). Then, it became broadened so that the bigoted Left could attribute hateful racialism to those who resisted mass immigration, and wanted some idea of the "commons" in civil society.
There are racialists, of course : my experience, doing business across much of the world, is that most of these people are not white. Where they are white, however, the term "white supremacist" describes these benighted souls accurately. Using that term, in preference to the discredited "racist", would remove much pugilistic intolerance and self-righteousness from our public discourse, and make it far richer. I suspect, however, that a rich public discourse is not desired by those who fear they may lose the right to define permitted speech.
Two more flags before I die!