[rance]

Yeah, I don't want to turn this forum into the YouTube comment section.

[headdie]

Just leave him. He's so wrong about everything he opens his trap about that you'd never be able to coax him into sanity without driving yourself mad from the effort.

here is another problem ph, Gee1337 is expressing well worded views in a manner that encourages debate on topics, All i have seen from you are 1 - 2 line drive by posts of an inflammatory nature with nothing backing anything up.

I voted Labour as a) I disagree with certain UKIP policies like exiting Europe, b )dont trust my normal go-to paty the lib dems after the farce of the last parliament, c ) fundamentally disagree with Tory policies of save over spend, d ) am uncomfortable with how UKIP seems to relate to people who's ancestry is from outside of the UK from in the last 3 generations previously.

[Phantom Hoover]

Well no, I'm not going to write walls of text addressing everything Gee1337 says when I can point to the specific sentences that show his political views are completely idiotic.

[headdie]

Well no, I'm not going to write walls of text addressing everything Gee1337 says when I can point to the specific sentences that show his political views are completely idiotic.

and yet concise informative rebuttals are the core of reasoned debate

[Phantom Hoover]

I'm not terribly concerned with having a ~reasoned debate~ in a Freespace modding forum with someone who says the SNP are Nazis and calls Asian people 'Mongaloids'.

[karajorma]

Attack the idea, not the person PH.

Both Labour and Tory have been guilty of this in the past, but no one bats an eyelid to them.

I don't think that either of them have had anywhere near the number that UKIP has had though. And when they do have them, they also kick them out.

It's actually got the point where I cannot contribute to this thread any more so this will be my last post on this thread, due to the distortion of definitions, then being called "ignorant" for my definitions being very clear.

Would you be happier if we start calling UKIP bigoted instead? You seem to take exception to them being called racist over their islamophobia, I assume you have no problem with me calling them bigots then?

As for being ignorant, even by your own definitions you have used racist words on this thread. You used the term mongoloid to describe a race. You're in the UK. You can't possibly claim to have not realised that the term is pejorative in the UK without actually being ignorant.

[666maslo666]

Would you be happier if we start calling UKIP bigoted instead? You seem to take exception to them being called racist over their islamophobia, I assume you have no problem with me calling them bigots then?

It is a better word for sure. But you also have to realize that one mans bigotry is another mans justified, rational aversion. So again, whether UKIP is bigoted or not is a matter of perspective and pretty subjective.

[The E]

There's a rational, justified aversion to Islam?

[zookeeper]

There's a rational, justified aversion to Islam?

There's a rational, justified stance towards Islam or any other similarly bonkers religion that isn't aversion?

You're pretty much asking whether there's a rational, justified aversion to an irrational, unjustified set of beliefs. Yes, of course there is.

[The E]

You're right, that was a stupid thing to say.

Let me rephrase then. There's a rational, justified aversion towards immigration?

Also, good job, Britain. You're soon going to be joining Belarus in not following the European Convention on Human Rights. How does it feel to be named in the same context as the only actual dictatorship in Europe?

[666maslo666]

Let me rephrase then. There's a rational, justified aversion towards immigration?

Of course there is. Not that all immigrants should be kicked out (which is not what UKIP wants anyway). But there are certainly rational reasons to argue for more strict regulations of who gets in and in what numbers.

[The E]

Ah, I see. You were talking about arguments, not aversion (aversion being an emotional dislike).

[Luis Dias]

So you were asking if there was a circular square or something to that effect?

Let's not forget we are talking about human beings being human here, we do think with our emotions as the intuitive machines they are, and then we try to rationalize them into a coherent argument. When we can't, it's a good hint our emotions are wrong, etc., but still, lets us not forget their usefulness, and not dismiss them if you, again, feel them to be bigoted at its core.

I do think that the fear of your own home, place and culture being overwhelmed by a foreign one for which there is little acknowledgement of its sophistication is a real one. Urban dwellers will find this fear a tad alien (no pun) because they already live in a city, that is, a homeless place filled with a multitude of multicultural masses, but they should not be smug or condescending about it. People like change but not revolutions. People don't mind immigration but they do worry if at a certain point their own culture will fail to integrate these people, leading to horrendous mismanagements like Rotherham, or the acceptance of sharia law within the UK, when there should be only one law, etc.

Are the solutions to be "racist" and so on? Well, this is the wrong question I think. I think that if you abolish any possibility of having this discussion in a civilized, rational and calmed manner, the discussion will once again go underground and feed from bigger paranoias and hatreds. The only parties that won't mind being called racists for having this discussion will be the only ones doing it, and they will be the racist parties themselves. And if these parties are really racist and nevertheless get so many votes themselves, then that's not the fault of the voting population per se, but of the political intelligentsia which was absolutely unable to represent, reason and solve these concerns, but instead buried them with the fear of being called out - yes, this is the true consequence of "political correctness", it doesn't solve inherent hatreds, it just stops reasonable political conflicts to be solved through legitimate means, which then raises tensions and furthers hatreds and creates whole problems by themselves.

So, by all means, demonize the UKIP as you want. I have little knowledge of them myself, I just find it funny that in the same breadth that you condemned the media for having created a huge fearmongering surrounding Labour before the elections, you just trust it to be fair in its condemnation of UKIP. But my point is this: demonize them. All you want. The only thing that you'll be achieving by doing this is to bury UKIP and substitute it for something even worse. I mean, it's not as if Europe is doing all of this **** all over the place. Just look at France. Or, alternatively, look at Greece, where europe is saying Syriza is a bunch of irresponsible radicals that will waste money like hell. Well, that will work. Instead of talking to them, instead of having a productive conversation to solve these issues, why not tell the Greek electorate that Syriza wasn't enough? Perhaps they will tire themselves out as well and elect Golden Dawn. Now, unless you're of "the worse the better" inclination, you'd see the folly in doing that.

People are even too afraid to be seen talking to each other, lest they be accused of "guilt by association" (the extreme left loves these pathetic games*), let alone talk about these issues. Well, lets us remain shut up then. That will solve everything.


*I'm being unfairly wrong here. The right also does this ridiculous game, albeit it doesn't "love it", it's just ashamed of it. Just look at the pathetic dance around more right wing governments talking to Syriza, politicians afraid of coming in support of their ideas lest they be accused of being irresponsible communists as well. I see walls being built everywhere in our political conversations. That american graph where they showed increased balkanization of american congress throughout the years is just another evidence of this fact. This trend seems to be universal and scary. I have no idea where this will take us, but if you remember that violence is usually the consequence of an impotence of communication and negotiation, the future does indeed look bleak.

[karajorma]

Yeah cause refusing to discuss anything with the BNP resulted in the rise to power of the UKIP party.....oh wait, isn't that the exact other way round from what you were claiming would happen?


Simple fact is that while talking about immigration, etc is important, the UKIP really have no place in that discussion. They don't have any answers to the questions being asked, you're simply asking that they are present because they ask the questions. Is that enough to make them worthy of being involved? **** no. They won't say anything that isn't utterly simplistic and crowd pleasing. Far better to take the questions back ourselves and have the conversation amongst those capable of actually doing something useful.

[Luis Dias]

You missed my central point. I don't care what you, I or any other think the UKIP is capable or incapable of doing. I've seen many reports of their amazing racist remarks and so on, but given how much I really distrust the media, my refrain of directly criticize them head on comes solely from a point of huge skepticism towards this image. If the image ends up being a correct representation, then of course I have no love for these people. But, again, this is beyond the point.

No, my main point is that all these votes for the BNP or the UKIP or what have you show, is that the political intelligentsia, the "bourgeois" centrist politicians, have utterly failed to have this conversation you say it should have been left for them to do. ERGO, they didn't. They were incompetent at doing it, and the public is yelling this out loud. The centrist parties no longer represent the "people", so to speak. Long gone are the days when Labour would be a good representative of the "working class people", now they look more like socialites from the bankster elites from London.

Again, were they and are they being populist and winning? Well, that merely means I'm right. It means that the centre has failed their people. The only true method of getting good discussions back from populists to those "capable of actually doing something useful" is by actually such "people" (I do wonder where these are) start actually *having this conversation and doing something useful*. If this doesn't happen, the people will vote to those who are the only ones talking about these issues, the populists. Fasten your seatbelts, it's only going to get worse.

[666maslo666]

Simple fact is that while talking about immigration, etc is important, the UKIP really have no place in that discussion. They don't have any answers to the questions being asked, you're simply asking that they are present because they ask the questions.

They dont have any answers? I thought their answer to the question is pretty clear - less immigration. Which is a perfectly valid answer.

[666maslo666]

Simple fact is that while talking about immigration, etc is important, the UKIP really have no place in that discussion. They don't have any answers to the questions being asked, you're simply asking that they are present because they ask the questions.

OK, I looked up what UKIP wants regarding immigration and here it is:


    Points system used to select migrants with skills and attributes needed to work in the country
    Immigration capped at 50,000 people a year for skilled workers
    Five-year ban on immigration for unskilled workers
    Five-year wait before migrants can claim benefits


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11536535/manifesto-2015-summary.html


In my opinion that is exactly how a sane immigration policy should look like, I am surprised most of those things arent a policy already. It is also much less harsh than I expected, considering that they are painted as some kind of a far right party one step removed from the nazis. It is absolutely a legitimate party, judging by their policies.

Of course, you can always claim that they are secret racists and their real policies would be much worse or something, but I find that argument highly dubious. Leaving the EU is a very bad idea IMHO, but still I wouldnt call it extremism in any way.

[Luis Dias]

They do the same with Syriza: their policy proposals are incredibly modest, and yet everyone treats them as "radicals", etc. It's incredible. I think this is the kind of public discourse you get when the big central intelligentsias start losing power over the populace.

[karajorma]

You do realise that an immigration cap of 50,000 would effectively destroy the NHS given that India alone provides us with 18,000 doctors, right?

And that's before we get into the effects of the other policies.

No, my main point is that all these votes for the BNP or the UKIP or what have you show, is that the political intelligentsia, the "bourgeois" centrist politicians, have utterly failed to have this conversation you say it should have been left for them to do. ERGO, they didn't. They were incompetent at doing it, and the public is yelling this out loud. The centrist parties no longer represent the "people", so to speak. Long gone are the days when Labour would be a good representative of the "working class people", now they look more like socialites from the bankster elites from London.

Again, were they and are they being populist and winning? Well, that merely means I'm right. It means that the centre has failed their people. The only true method of getting good discussions back from populists to those "capable of actually doing something useful" is by actually such "people" (I do wonder where these are) start actually *having this conversation and doing something useful*. If this doesn't happen, the people will vote to those who are the only ones talking about these issues, the populists. Fasten your seatbelts, it's only going to get worse.

Except UKIP are not being populist and winning. They are being populist and getting 1 seat out of 600. My entire point is that we do not need these people in the discussion. We need to have the discussion without them precisely because they aren't capable of bringing anything useful to the table.

[Luis Dias]

I'm glad that you have preemptively decided this to be so. Really sounds very democratic of you. Regarding your 18k doctors from India, are you saying that the UK are importing 18k doctors from India per year? Perhaps you were, and that was just a gaffe on your end. Regardless, I think numbers are very debatable. What concerns me is not any particular figure, but the perspective that, if you bring up the topic of immigration, a cloud of suspicion already hovers on your head, and perhaps you should leave that topic alone. Again, I'm not seeing anyone challenging this notion, so I guess I'm right.

e: by "winning", I mean in the sheer number of total votes. That the UK has a system that fails to give voice to 3 million british people is a failure of the british political system, not the absence of these views.