Heartland

Johnny Rev 7.0 wrote:

itnAklipse wrote:Hey, thanks, i guess! Just without the r in the name.

I was close!

Long time my friend. Where was that place you lived in Finland that had 'punk' in the city/town name when we traded/weeded?

That's kidn of you to remember me, it really was a long time ago! The town still is UusikauPUNKi - never noticed that myself, must admit.

mh wrote:

itnAklipse wrote:Are you telling me minorities shouldn't have rights if you don't like them

This depends on how you define the word "rights". What kind of "rights" are you talking about here?

itnAklipse wrote:i'm afraid of sheeple forcing their ignorant views on me.

And so am I! Guess we've something in common!

Most people do... if we could only put our differences aside and live according to the principles and ideals in the US constitution...

The rights i'm talking about are the traditional and obvious ones - such as the freedom of speech, opinion, to defend one's self...

Unfortunately, most liberals in my experience are anything but liberal, they are authoritarian control-freaks who want to annihilate anyone who doesn't agree with them. (And i don't even claim to be a liberal, if i could be defined politically, i'd be 'US-Constitutionalist'.)

itnAklipse wrote:That's kind of you to remember me, it really was a long time ago! The town still is UusikauPUNKi - never noticed that myself, must admit.

Cool Jouni. Always used to smile to myself when I wrote that on the envelope. But don't let me distract you. Back to your political debate...

Johnny Rev 7.0 wrote:

itnAklipse wrote:That's kind of you to remember me, it really was a long time ago! The town still is UusikauPUNKi - never noticed that myself, must admit.

Cool Jouni. Always used to smile to myself when I wrote that on the envelope. But don't let me distract you. Back to your political debate...

So far, meeting you was more pleasant...

itnAklipse wrote:

Johnny Rev 7.0 wrote: Where was that place you lived in Finland that had 'punk' in the city/town name when we traded/weeded?

The town still is UusikauPUNKi .

@Johnny Rev 7.0 i saw what you did there even if no-one else did.

Immigration is a complex topic but parties like UKIP around Europe try to oversimplify the debate, and as in the case of Farage's recent comments about Romanians, try to demonise one particular nationality, which would tend to fit most definitions of racism. I personally think that the more their policies are held up to scrutiny, the less likely people are to vote for them. Sadly, this Thursday's ballot may prove me wrong.

I think everyone's a racist to a certain degree. That's ingrained in our basic behaviour, we prefer those who are from our own tribe. Even the pointedly anti-imperialist, anti-fascist radicals exhibit racism, since they typically deny third world people the capability of doing evil, or even free will itself (they're all manipulated by the West/USA/Israel, and would live in paradise if it were not for the machinations of the imperialist West), thus degrading them to the level of immature children.
In the end, we have to make a conscious decision to like others and respect them aswell, as long as they don't prove their unworthiness of our sympathy, even though, by instinct, we prefer those who are more similar to us.

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:Immigration is a complex topic but parties like UKIP around Europe try to oversimplify the debate, and as in the case of Farage's recent comments about Romanians, try to demonise one particular nationality, which would tend to fit most definitions of racism. I personally think that the more their policies are held up to scrutiny, the less likely people are to vote for them. Sadly, this Thursday's ballot may prove me wrong.

What others may call over-simplification, others might call cutting through the chase. i don't think it's complicated at all - what possible excuse there can be to bring in foreign nationals to live at the expense of the citizens is beyond me, and i confess to be stupid enough never to understand it, nor accept it, whatever excuse presented.

And what statistics have to say about Romanians in regards to this issue is what i'd be asking instead of having a knee-jerk reaction because someone dares to say something. Do you know that the world has a lot of people who want a free lunch at your expense?

As for these newspeak-definitions of racism, i don't care for them to begin with - they are but a great way to try and control political discourse and make some subjects taboo and give moral high-ground for the actual criminals.

But hey, what do you think of Prince Phillip, or Harry? Ha-ha.

nowayjose wrote:I think everyone's a racist to a certain degree. That's ingrained in our basic behaviour, we prefer those who are from our own tribe. Even the pointedly anti-imperialist, anti-fascist radicals exhibit racism, since they typically deny third world people the capability of doing evil, or even free will itself (they're all manipulated by the West/USA/Israel, and would live in paradise if it were not for the machinations of the imperialist West), thus degrading them to the level of immature children.
In the end, we have to make a conscious decision to like others and respect them aswell, as long as they don't prove their unworthiness of our sympathy, even though, by instinct, we prefer those who are more similar to us.

i have a simpler solution: let's accept our humanity! - i'd argue it's better in the long run for anyone than any fantastical dream of a control-freak do-gooder who'll kill however many countless of millions to achieve his utopia where there's peace.

i won't make a conscious decision to like anyone i don't like. Period. i reject your social engineering.

itnAklipse wrote:

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:Immigration is a complex topic but parties like UKIP around Europe try to oversimplify the debate, and as in the case of Farage's recent comments about Romanians, try to demonise one particular nationality, which would tend to fit most definitions of racism. I personally think that the more their policies are held up to scrutiny, the less likely people are to vote for them. Sadly, this Thursday's ballot may prove me wrong.

What others may call over-simplification, others might call cutting through the chase. i don't think it's complicated at all - what possible excuse there can be to bring in foreign nationals to live at the expense of the citizens is beyond me, and i confess to be stupid enough never to understand it, nor accept it, whatever excuse presented.

And what statistics have to say about Romanians in regards to this issue is what i'd be asking instead of having a knee-jerk reaction because someone dares to say something. Do you know that the world has a lot of people who want a free lunch at your expense?

As for these newspeak-definitions of racism, i don't care for them to begin with - they are but a great way to try and control political discourse and make some subjects taboo and give moral high-ground for the actual criminals.

But hey, what do you think of Prince Phillip, or Harry? Ha-ha.

Maybe you should go back upthread and read Lee's post, eh?

To be honest, you're reading a lot like you've bought into an ideology without actually analyzing what it means, and that's dangerous.

mh wrote:Maybe you should go back upthread and read Lee's post, eh?

To be honest, you're reading a lot like you've bought into an ideology without actually analyzing what it means, and that's dangerous.

You're a bit arrogant, aren't you? i treated even you with courtesy and respect, and what do i get in return? And if "Lee" has something to say to me, he can say it to me.

i have answered everyone here with arguments and explanations, and get in response mostly ad hominem attacks. But it is not unexpected. My job is only to say what i think - beyond that it's not my responsibility.

i just don't know how people like you live with yourselves, but i'm glad that's not my problem!

it is utterly galling that as defenders of free-speech we are honour-bound to allow a voice to the indefensibly ignorant and dangerously divisive utterances of the moronic far-right. however we can retain the moral high-ground without actually reiterating any of their painfully primitive rhetoric or cretinous and vile beliefs, even for the purpose of ridiculing them. so i shan't. nor can i be arsed to state the many obvious reasons why we shouldn't vote for the spasticated fuckwits who cling to the flags of ukip/bnp/national socialism whilst pretending to speak for me...which they don't. my grammar mayn't be all that but i have mastered words of more than one silly-bull sufficiently to express some of my opinions...all of which are facts, as it happens.

1. once upon a time, every human being born (including the Baby Jesus) was born a shade of brown. one day, no matter how long it takes (probably not very long as we have technologically mastered the traversing of our planet) and regardless of how much you dislike the idea of your sisters and daughters being fucked rigid by a non-ayrian, every human being born will be born a shade of brown (or have eight fingers/one eye/a forehead you can rest a pint on.) live with it.


2. the use of spitfires on pamphlets (to inspire patriotism) should serve to remind the pricks posting them through my letterbox that we traditionally fight against fascism. and that a hell of a lot of those spitfires were piloted by the Polish etc, who hadn't come here to steal our jobs but because they were our allies in our fight against said fascism.

3. the countless races who have made the uk their home since the dawn of time are the reason we survive as a hopelessy "mongrel" nation. that cultural and genetic diversity is our strenghth. the reality of racial "purity" is the reason why pedigree bulldogs can hardly breathe, let alone catch a cow...and also why it is ill-advised to fuck your sister.

4. for the record, i am proud to be from belgrave, which is in leicester, a city of england. where i live is jam-packed full of people whose antecedents came from elsewhere. so much so that if you sent us all "home" there would be no fucker left, you twats.

itnAklipse wrote: And if "Lee" has something to say to me, he can say it to me.
!

as of course i would be happy to. feel free to turn up on my doorstep for a frank exchange of opinions anytime (i believe we have each other's addressses, though i'm unsure as to whether i have the correct name dei?)

always,
(just) Lee (no extraneous punctuation required)

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:it is utterly galling that as defenders of free-speech we are honour-bound to allow a voice to the indefensibly ignorant and dangerously divisive utterances of the moronic far-right.

You don't even know what far-right really is. And that's a fact.

All the four points you present are targeted against chimeras, mere rhetoric that has little to do with what UKIP is saying, but since vaguelly touching on related topics, the undiscerning think them relevant. That's what 'talking points' are invented for.

as of course i would be happy to. feel free to turn up on my doorstep for a frank exchange of opinions anytime

That would be nice, but first you'd have to sincerely take back calling me, however ignorantly, belonging to 'moronic far-right'. i don't get insulted, but i do not agree in a fair exchange of views with utterly prejudiced people, arrogant in their ignorance.

itnAklipse - does it never occur to you that perhaps you come across as extremely arrogant and insulting, and that perhaps that is why people react to you in an insulting way?

I'm not basing that purely on this thread, but on all the politics threads you took part in before you last announced you were leaving this forum back in 2011.

This is not an attempt to insult you, but a serious question.

Do you understand that the way you "talk" to others is deeply condescending and arrogant - for example by referring to people who don't agree with you as "ignorant", "sheeple", etc., by summarily dismissing others' arguments rather than replying to them. You said in a post above that you treated a poster with "courtesy and respect", but the way you come across is barely courteous and certainly not respectful.

Like I said, this is a serious question about the way you interact rather than the political dogma you're espousing.

itnAklipse wrote:i have answered everyone here with arguments and explanations

You see, this is a problem:

itnAklipse wrote:what possible excuse there can be to bring in foreign nationals to live at the expense of the citizens is beyond me ..... Do you know that the world has a lot of people who want a free lunch at your expense?

What you're doing here is actually not answering with arguments and explanations. Instead, what you're doing is just parrotting the same tired old far-right/racist/scare-mongering talk that we've all heard so many times before.

"Bloody foreigners", "coming over here and taking our jobs", "they all get free houses and free cars you know", "someone should send them back", etc.

None of that is anything new. We've all heard it before and it goes back a long long time. You're not saying anything original, you're just parrotting a party-line that's well worn-out and is designed to prey on people's fears and emotions.

I'm really sorry if you find me arrogant as a result of this, but I can't in all good conscience let it pass.

While multinational companies slowly but increasingly take over rule making states not more than their livestock administrators, I find it any sort of nationalism very outdated and surely not appropriate for anybody anywhere, except for those who profit of course.

itnAklipse wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:it is utterly galling that as defenders of free-speech we are honour-bound to allow a voice to the indefensibly ignorant and dangerously divisive utterances of the moronic far-right.

..... you'd have to sincerely take back calling me, however ignorantly, belonging to 'moronic far-right'. i don't get insulted, but i do not agree in a fair exchange of views with utterly prejudiced people, arrogant in their ignorance.

your mistake there i'm afraid, as i hadn't read any of the posts made by yourself and others subsequent to my previous one until after i'd posted the one you quoted from. i was merely referring to the political parties and the policies thereof which i think of as the moronic far-right. however, if the cap fits...

itnAklipse wrote:Mark, first reason to vote for UKIP: Lord Monckton. One of the few people to tell the truth about man-made global warming, and a hell of a smart man.

Oh. Wait. you were serious?

Monckton's opinion on climate change is demonstrably wrong.

Actually I'll qualify that. Monckton's opinion on climate change is slippery. What is he saying this week? We're not warming? We are warming but it's not the CO2? It is the CO2 but not our CO2? There's no point doing anything because of China's CO2?

The man is a proven liar and a fascist.*

* yes it is a word bandied about a lot by us lefties, but in this case I think it's fair.

He's probably also one of the lizard-people

Also, calling Barack Obama "Barry Sotero" and claiming that he's a Marxist is... a little far from the truth. His politics would fit quite comfortably in the UK Conservative party.

=================================

The point with racism (and misogyny and homophobia, and others) is not that it's an accusation of some kind of personal moral failing, it's a recognition that our society as a whole systematically disadvantages entire groups of people. (People of colour in the case of racism, women in the case of sexism, etc.) Some groups are privileged over others (men over women, white people over people of colour, "straight" people over LGBT people, etc.) and you can either try to mitigate and lessen this advantage/disadvantage or you can try to make it worse. I believe that the right thing to do is to try to reduce the amount of inequality in the world.

UKIP on the other hand, surely must know that their policies will exacerbate these systematic disadvantages, and yet they don't seem to care. Their policies will deliberately harm people of colour, deliberately harm women, deliberately harm the poor, the sick, the needy. This is why I will not vote for them.

eastmidswhizzkid wrote: 3. the countless races who have made the uk their home since the dawn of time are the reason we survive as a hopelessy "mongrel" nation. that cultural and genetic diversity is our strenghth. the reality of racial "purity" is the reason why pedigree bulldogs can hardly breathe, let alone catch a cow...and also why it is ill-advised to fuck your sister.
.

"Diversity is strength" is very much a cliche used by very well-meaning people. So tell me: how is it a strength? What makes it a strength? I am genuinely curious.

Not to answer for Lee but the biological concept of "hybrid vigour" (or vigor if you prefer) does lend credence to this idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor#Humans

I doubt that the mass-import of a culture that is violently intolerant of anything other than itself can be construed as contributing to 'diversity'.