slogger ?

[Softus]

How is it that governments get away with racism?

Because border controls are a lesser evil than absence of border controls, and they are heavily based on trade agreements, not on personal attributes.

If I'm a Samali man and ask the UK government if I can live here they will say "No, you are the wrong race - we don't want you".

That isn't the response, as well you know.

If anyone doesn't have right of entry then they are denied entry. If being from a particular country equates to absence of that right, then it's a border control, not a racist remark, or attitude, or policy.

If that Somali then goes to Holland as is naturalised and comes back as a Dutch citizen and I say "Go away, you are a Somali, you are the wrong race" - I'd be deemed a racist.

I don't know why you think that. A Dutch citizen has right of entry, but your comment isn't rooted in racism, merely in a wrong understanding.

I'm sure you could find an unpleasant way of saying "Go away", but unless you qualified what "wrong race" means, i.e. put it terms that stated or implied a belief of inferiority based on race, then it would remain merely unpleasant and nothing more than that.

 

[joe-90]

I mean that border control is racially motivated. Nothing to do with trade FFS!

We don't want Somalis (or we'd invite them in).

 

[Softus]

I mean that border control is racially motivated. Nothing to do with trade FFS!

In that case you and I have a different understanding of the purpose of border controls, and the motivation behind the granting of right of entry for citizens of a given country.

 

[joe-90]

I mean that border control is racially motivated. Nothing to do with trade FFS!

In that case you and I have a different understanding of the purpose of border controls, and the motivation behind the granting of right of entry for citizens of a given country.

Which is exactly what Slogger used to say. Didn't care who they were or where they came from, we simply didn't need them. So you see, Slogger was only advocating border control - just like you are. Are you Slogger by any chance?

 

[Softus]

Which is exactly what Slogger used to say.

No it isn't.

Didn't care who they were or where they came from, we simply didn't need them. So you see, Slogger was only advocating border control - just like you are.

The things that Slogger advocated I very much disagreed with, ergo they aren't the same.

Are you Slogger by any chance?

 

[joe-90]

You say that Slogger was a racist. To which race? C'mon - put up or shut up.

He was against wholesale European immigration because he believed they took jobs, housing, school places, medical resources and was little benefit to the country. The House of Lords reached the same conclusion. The next election will be fought over this very issue.

 

[Softus]

Why are you showing a picture of a womaniser and communist sympathiser whose real name is Michael?

Because he stood for a particularly laudible cause, is instantly recognisable, and the expression on his face poetically represents a view the laughable attempt by you to define Slogger as non-racist.

You say that Slogger was a racist.

Not quite:

she was/is an out-of-control, aggressive, sometimes violent, bigoted, racist. And I feel that her banning is not entirely unrelated to that behaviour.

To which race?

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter.

 

[holmslaw]

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter.

end of ...........

 

[megawatt]

joe-90 wrote:

I mean that border control is racially motivated. Nothing to do with trade FFS!

Softus replied:

In that case you and I have a different understanding of the purpose of border controls, and the motivation behind the granting of right of entry for citizens of a given country.

I agree with Softus, this is extreme even by Joe's standards.

To say that racism doesn't exist Joe means that ...

1. You are remarkably naive nee stupid.
or
2. You are just being your obtuse self for the sake of an argument.
or
3. You are indeed a racist as the only people I have ever met who don't believe racism is a growing issue are racists themselves (who also fall into category 1 IMO).

I'd probably go for 2

MW

 

[joe-90]

How can someone be a racist when you can't even give me the race that they were racist towards? Was he anti-black? Never seen colour mentioned in any of his posts.

Was he anti- immigration? You bet he was - and the next election will be fought over the issue.

Now why don't you post a few snips of what Slogger actually wrote rather than what you think he wrote?

It's not racism that's an issue in society - but wholesale immigration. Which, according to the House of Lords, benefits no-one other than the immigrant.

Why do you think that you (Softus,mega) have the right to deny someone their free speech just because you don't like what they are saying?

Do you suggest we open the UK borders or do you (in reality) support Slogger in this issue.

 

[Softus]

How can someone be a racist when you can't even give me the race that they were racist towards?

I'm sure that there are racists in this country with whom I've had no contact. I don't know which race(s) those people 'dislike'.

If you think that Slogger wasn't a racist, then there's nothing else to say about that.

Was he anti-black? Never seen colour mentioned in any of his posts.

I actually don't care anymore at whom her specific hatred was aimed. She's gone, and I didn't post on this topic with the aim of persuading you of anything.

Was he anti- immigration? You bet he was - and the next election will be fought over the issue.

That's a forecast that has nothing to do with the history of Slogger. Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. If it makes you cease posting this particular opinion, then let's just assume that your forecast is correct, because it doesn't change anything.

Now why don't you post a few snips of what Slogger actually wrote rather than what you think he wrote?

Because I have no motivation whatsoever to go looking up things just to save you the effort.

It's not racism that's an issue in society - but wholesale immigration.

This topic isn't about wholesale immigration - it's about Slogger.

Why do you think that you (Softus,mega) have the right to deny someone their free speech just because you don't like what they are saying?

I've already said that her act of incitement was illegal, so it doesn't matter whether or not I "like" it.

Do you suggest we open the UK borders or do you (in reality) support Slogger in this issue.

Unless I've missed something vital, Slogger isn't in any position, or role, or job, that warrants my "support". She was/is what she was/is, and I've made my position abundantly clear, repeatedly, on the content and manner of her posts on the fora.

 

[joe-90]

The vital thing is, Softus, that you are accusing a member of the forum (who isn't here to defend themselves) against your unproven slurs. Feel free to provide proof if you like.

You are against wholesale immigration (as is Slogger).

So what are you actually saying?

You are saying that you agree with Slogger but not with Sloggers style of writing.

Okay, if that's where you are coming from. Fine. Both Softus and Slogger are against wholesale immigration.

If you want to talk about RACISM - then come on - prove it. Show me one statement that Slogger made that was racist. (he won't )

 

[Softus]

The vital thing is, Softus, that you are accusing a member of the forum (who isn't here to defend themselves) against your unproven slurs.

I've checked in the mirror, and confirmed that my face appears not to be bothered.

Feel free to provide proof if you like.

Proof is freely available to anyone who can be bothered to search the fora. I can't.

You are against wholesale immigration (as is Slogger).

This topic isn't about what I am, or am not, against.

So what are you actually saying?

Incitement is something that can be measured by the risk of an effect, i.e. without reference to an actual effect. For example, the intention to incite is as important as the efficacy of the act.

If you really, REALLY, want to believe that Slogger's views were reasonable and rational, then please go ahead and believe it.

I choose to believe that she was/is an out-of-control, aggressive, sometimes violent, bigoted, racist. And I feel that her banning is not entirely unrelated to that behaviour.

You are saying that you agree with Slogger but not with Sloggers style of writing.

Nope.

Okay, if that's where you are coming from.

Nope.

If you want to talk about RACISM - then come on - prove it.

Nope. I want to talk about Slogger inciting racial hatred by being overtly racist. I'm not the only one who believes it.

Show me one statement that Slogger made that was racist. (he won't )

That's not a very brave prediction, given that I've said (countless times) that I won't. Go put the effort in - go search for yourself.

 

[joe-90]

I'm not the only one who believes it.

There are endless numbers of people who believe in alien abduction too - but it doesn't make it fact.


You are just a flippin bluffer that can't provide any proof for their cowardly accusations against a person that is not at liberty to retaliate. Shame on you.

 

[tim west]

There are endless numbers of people who believe in alien abduction too - but it doesn't make it fact.

It's a fact joe, otherwise how do you explain the contestants in Big Brother?